
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 


» 

















































r 


/ 






Scripture Worthies 


THEIR CHARACTERS 

VIEWED IN A NEW LIGHT 


BY THE REV. 


7 

P. SPENCER WHITMAN, D. D. 


WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 

Rev. Charles Manly, D. D. 


Fleming H. Revell Company, 

Chicago :: New York :: Toronto 

Publishers of Evangelical Literature 


155 sn i 

W55 


29415 


Copyrighted. 1899, by P. Spencer Whitman. 


'TWO OO Pi. 


; -CE(V£©. 


t 




MAH 3 11819 ' 

Ver d 


D 1 VVj 


v 


PREFACE. 


The writer of these chapters has been for many 
years studying the Scriptural accounts of these, and 
other worthies, to see whether the accepted opinions 
concerning them were correct. 

He has been surprised to discover how different 
was the fact, and that much light has been obscured 
by popular commentators. 

If these pages shall encourage a more careful in- 
spection of God’s Word, and enable the reader to see 
more clearly the high value and distinguished ex- 
cellence of some lives that have been long under ex- 
positorial censure, the writer will enjoy a sufficient 
rew T ard for his effort to such an end. 

This volume may be followed by others, aiming to 
give independent conceptions of New Testament his^ 
tory and teaching. 

P. S. Whitman. 


Toccoa, Ga. 































f 



























CONTENTS. 


Introduction ..... 9 

CHAPTER I. 

Noah ....... 13 

Enoch and Noah Compared. 

CHAPTER II. 

Lot ........ 19 

1. Separation of Abraham and Lot. 

2. Lot in Sodom. 

3. Initial Misconceptions as to Abraham’s Concern 

for Sodom. 

4. God’s Positive Assertions Safe Interpreters of Hu- 

man Actions. 

5. Misconception as to Facts, which are turned to Lot’s 

Disadvantage. 

CHAPTER III. 

Rebecca and her Sons ..... 58 

1. Eliezer and Rebecca. 

2. “But Rebecca Loved Jacob.” 

3. Parental Love Affected by the Conduct of Children. 

4. Should Jacob’s Name be Interpreted to His Disad- 

vantage? 

5. “And Jacob was a Plain Man dwelling in Tents.” 

6. Error of Expositors in making Rebecca chargeable 

with the Future Troubles of the Family. 

7. Gratuitous Lament because Isaac and Rebecca did 

not Agree. 

8. Rebecca acting in Concert with the Divine Purpose 

previously Revealed. 


5 


6 


CONTENTS 


9. The Great Question. Was Rebecca in Fault as to 
Measures she Employed ? 

a. Did Jacob Lie? 

b. Did Jacob Deceive his Father? 

c. Did Jacob Defraud Esau? 

10. The Pottage Bargain Interpreted by the Way it was 

Complied with. 

11. Rebecca’s Fidelity to the Abrahamic Family. 

12. Jacob in Haran. The “ Twenty Years ” Fallacy. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Retubn of Jacob to Canaan .... 89 

1. The Command to Return connected with the Promise 

at Bethel. 

2. Jacob in Council with Rachel and Leah. 

3. How the Journey commences. Arrival in Mount 

Gilead in Ten Days Explained. 

4. Overtaken by Laban. Trouble ended by a Covenant 

of Peace. Jacob met by Angels. Mahanaim. 

5. Jacob sends Messengers to Esau. His alarm at the 

Report brought back. 

6. Preparing for the Worst, whilst his Reliance is God’s 

Promise. He Prays. 

7. He plans another Mode of Effort: Combatting Evil 

with Good. The Presents viewed in connection 
with his Vow. 

8. Victory antedated by the Contest at Peniel. Jacob 

alone with God. 

9. Battle between the Brothers described. Jacob as 

Preexistent Gospel Victor Reenters the Promised 
Land. 

CHAPTER V. 

Joseph and His Mobalizebs .... 106 

CHAPTER VI. 

Moses — Why Moses and Aabon could not Enteb the 

Pbomised Land ..... 110 


CONTENTS 


7 


1. The Case of Moses at Kadesh=barnea. 

2. The Case at Kadesh^Meribah, in which both Moses 

and Aaron are Involved. 

3. Some Things Restated. Conclusion. 

CHAPTER VII. 

Rahab: God’s Heroine ..... 127 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The Foub Women — Tamab, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba 135 
CHAPTER IX. 

Elijah . . ... . . . 144 

1. False Moralizers. 

2. Saved from Death, but not from False Moralizers 

2800 Years After. 

3. The Traducers of Elijah. 






INTRODUCTION. 


Biography, especially Scripture biography, will 
always be interesting and instructive. It is rightly 
employed, by those who give direction to the studies 
of the young in our Sunday-schools, for making the 
Bible attractive and thereby turning attention to its 
profoundest teachings. The biography of the Bible 
differs from that found anywhere else, in the accuracy 
of its representation of the characters of those it pre- 
sents to us, and it is worthy of our most careful and 
candid study. 

There was a time, perhaps, when, because many 
Scripture personages are unquestionably set before 
as as the people of God, it was thought necessary to 
justify every action recorded of them, and to show 
that, even if it did not in each instance meet with 
the direct approval of God, the case was so far 
exceptional as to make it no longer of any value to 
us in determining our duty or in testing our 
character. This sometimes required such a dis- 
tortion of principles of righteousness, which ought to 
be recognized as immutable as to make them appear 
mutable, and of uncertain application in the affairs 
of our every-day life. 

A reaction from this method is seen in the ten- 
dency nowadays to seize upon individual acts of in- 
9 


10 


INTRODUCTION 


firmity, or upon conduct different from that which mod- 
ern standards altogether approve, and by magnifying 
every weakness, and separating it from its connec- 
tions, make it appear such a crime that one wonders 
how such characters could in any sense be considered 
righteous and be properly called the people of God. 
The flippancy with which serious charges of fault 
are made, and which distinguishes many late writers 
— sometimes, alas! of those who prepare the Sundays 
school lessons for our young people — is most pain- 
ful to devout and thoughtful minds, and is sure to do 
great harm to those who get accustomed to this 
treatment of the history of men and women “of 
whom,” according to the unerring judgment of God, 
“ the world was not worthy.” 

Its evil influence is further seen in the way 
that many have come to look even on our blessed 
Lord, who, instead of being regarded as the holy and 
absolutely perfect one, — appointed to be Judge of all 
because He is the Son of Man, John v. 27, — must 
needs be apologized for, and some of whose holiest 
and most godlike acts must be explained as instances 
of the infirmities of His human nature. 

It is in earnest protest against this method of 
treatment that the articles compiled in this volume 
have been written. They have, indeed, been com- 
posed at different times and for different occasions; 
but having the same general purpose and being 
based on the same principle of candid interpretation 
of the Scripture narrative in all its particulars, it is 
well that they are collected, so as to lead students of 


INTRODUCTION 


11 


the Bible to take more careful views of those who are 
presented in its pages as specimens of real men and 
women, in whom the grace of God was operating to 
redeem them from the dominion of sin, and to show 
how we, too, may be made “ more than conquerors 
through Him that loved us.” 

Let us bear in mind that if we are to be really 
profited by the biographies of the Bible we must 
study each character in all its connections with the 
fairness and candor to which a perfectly impartial 
record is entitled. 

Whether each one who reads this volume will 
agree in every particular with the views expressed by 
the venerable man who gives us in it the fruits of his 
maturest and devoutest thought is not so important 
as that its character and purpose shall be recognized 
and that we shall be led to more careful, accurate, 
and just study of the living Word of the Living God. 

Charles Manly. 


Greenville , S. C. 






















































































































































































































































































































. 


























































































































































































































































I. 

NOAH. 


Enoch and Noah compared ; or, was Noah 
a drunkard f 

Bad as the world is, there have been at all times 
persons of remarkable virtue, and more or less com- 
mended by their fellow men; more than this, 
there have been men and women commended by 
God, whose commendation has been marked by 
miraculous testimony. What a record we have of 
Enoch! According to the reference of Jude the 
world had become very wicked; yet Enoch persevered, 
preaching righteousness, and there could have been 
no lack in his practice, for the divine record is that 
“he walked with God, after he begat Methuselah, 
three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters; 
and all the days of Enoch were three hundred 
and sixty^five years.” What additional commenda- 
tion as the record ends, “And Enoch walked with 
God, and he was not; for God took him.” His appro- 
bation, we see, was most decidedly of God. What an 
admonition to the world is here, wherein is seen the 
difference in God’s estimation between Enoch and the 
rest of mankind. This delineation of Enoch’s char- 
acter and the manner of God’s approbation are so 
13 


14 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


remarkable that we can hardly expect any mortal 
ever to shine in fairer light. 

We make this reference to Enoch by way of intro- 
duction to the character of Noah. With the phys- 
ical improvement of the race immediately subsequent 
to the time of Enoch, the world became more wicked 
than ever — so wicked that God said, “ I will destroy 
man whom I have created from the face of the earth.” 
“ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” 
Hear further: “Noah was a just man, and perfect in 
his generation, and Noah walked with God.” Now a 
writer of eminence makes Enoch’s commendation 
superior to this, because it is said, “ Enoch walked 
with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred 
years.” Here, it is proper to say, we do not know but 
that Enoch walked with God more than three hun- 
dred years, for he may have walked with God before 
he begat Methuselah as well as after. And as for 
Noah, we do not know but that he walked with 
God six hundred years. The Scripture quoted seems 
to present this walking with God as the general 
character of his life. It is said of Enoch that he 
walked with God three hundred years; but it does 
not diminish his high rank in goodness to suppose 
it was equaled or even surpassed by that of Noah. 
Men had become, in the time of Noah, altogether 
more violent and desperate in wickedness. His con- 
flict with sin must have been sharper and more 
troublesome than that of Enoch; and we must re- 
member it was nearly three times as long; and if, in 
commendation of his life it is said, “Noah was a just 


NOAH 


15 


man and perfect in his generation,” with the most 
significant item added, “ and Noah walked with God,” 
we think Noah’s exaltation is presented as no less 
wonderful than Enoch’s. 

But Enoch’s distinctive eminence shines in the 
record, “ He was not, for God took him.” And 
this is not said of Noah. But God’s regard for him 
was shown in another way. When we think of God’s 
bringing on the flood, overwhelming the earth with 
water, and yet the ark with Noah and his family 
riding secure on the universal abyss — he and his 
family alone saved to start the human race anew — 
all this, it seems to us, is making Noah more dis- 
tinguished by God than as if it could be said of him 
as of Enoch, “ He was not, for God took him.” 

We come now to a point wherein Noah is supposed 
to suffer vastly in comparison with Enoch. The 
latter, it is said, is one of the few men whose record 
in Scripture is all on the credit side. The language 
descriptive of him is altogether the lauguage of 
encomium. “ He stands charged with no fault.” 
Now if all this were equally true of Noah, it would 
make his excellence more remarkable than Enoch’s; 
for the life of Noah was nigh six hundred years 
longer than that of Enoch, the people had become more 
abandoned to lust and violence than in the days of 
Enoch, making his conflict with vice more formidable 
and trying. Moreover his history is given with ten 
times the minuteness that characterizes that of 
Enoch, so that if there were follies or wrongs they 
would be altogether more apt to come to the surface. 


16 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


All this would make Noah more wonderful than 
Enoch if, in his case, as in Enoch’s, inspiration 
records no flaw in his character. 

Some moralizers are fond of allusions to the time 
when Noah lay overcome with stupor and uncovered 
in his tent. But who does not know that the divine 
pen is here recording the sin of Ham and that it is 
farthest possible from the intimation of wrong on the 
part of Noah? It is human pens and human tongues 
that here, with no particle of Scriptural warrant, 
write and talk of Noah’s sin, whereas the sacred 
narrative dwells alone on the sin of Ham and its 
consequences. It is because the Lord is God that 
He is not found complaining of Jesus for breaking 
the Sabbath, or of Noah, when by experience he 
first learned the stupefying nature of the beverage 
which his new vineyard had brought into use. If 
anyone supposes that Enoch’s three-hundred=year 
walk with God means no inadvertence, like taking a 
wrong path and getting lost, or doing nothing which 
his judges, in this nineteenth century after Christ, 
might construe to his disadvantage, he is as much 
mistaken as any Pharisee that has ever passed judg- 
ment upon Christian morals. 

We may have a certain degree of forbearance with 
teachers and expositors who may be quite too fond 
of detecting flaws in the best characters; but when a 
preacher, taking occasion to dilate on the sins of 
good men, makes the fling which we sometimes hear, 
“ There was Noah the drunkard,” or “Noah who 
disgraced himself and brought a curse upon his 


NOAH 


17 


family by getting beastly drunk,” we can hardly 
express our resentme nt, for it is a libel of the most 
aggravating character. It is derisive of God and 
should be revolting to every candid reader of His 
Word. 

What is fact in the case? Somebody was to learn 
by experience that if guided by thirst or taste 
alone he might drink so much of the new beverage 
as to make him intensely drowsy or reduce him to 
utter stupefaction. Noah’s case is plainly regarded, 
such is the tenor of the narrative, as an affair not 
necessarily involving blame any more than when a 
child, overdrinking of milk, falls into a deep slumber, 
Noah was no more a sinn er than the man who 
first learned that caution is needed lest, when suffer- 
ing with heat or thirst, one should drink of cold 
water to excess. The life of Noah, which was con- 
tinued three hundred years after this experience, 
offers no reasonable chance for us to suppose any- 
thing else than that he used the experience of that 
occasion for the benefit of his family. Nay, it is but 
fair to infer that his desce ndants at the very start, in 
repeopling the earth received due caution from 
Noah against all kinds of excessive indulgence. We 
may go further and safely conclude that, if before 
he died that preacher of righteousness found that 
there was no such thing as using the beverage in 
moderation, or keeping it from poisonous adultera- 
tions, he may have become quite radical in his 
admonition, and have ended his days a preacher of 
total abstinence. 


18 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


In our day it is, indeed against a man’s character to 
get drunk even once. It supposes a voluntary min- 
gling with bad company, deliberately going where poi- 
sonous intoxicants are kept; and this amid warnings 
of danger and ruin all around him — a state of things 
which did not exist in relation to Noah. But even in 
our day, if it is only once in his life that a person gets 
drunk, is it to be expected that thousands of years 
after he must be stigmatized as a drunkard? If we 
seek a man most to be relied on for temperance, it 
may be the man of whom it is said, “ He got drunk 
once, but never again.” 

It is only common virtue to put a favorable con- 
struction upon a man’s conduct when the circum- 
stances in the case will permit, But in the case of 
Noah the circumstances demand it. And the viola- 
tion of this rule in respect to him should be abhor- 
rent to all mankind. 


II. 


LOT. 

I . — The Separation of Abraham and Lot. 

The story of Abraham opens, himself the hero, but 
Lot the charm of it. Uncle and nephew by birth, 
they continue twins in goodness until the separation. 
The particulars of this event are given to show, as 
most of the commentators would have us think, how 
the two suddenly diverged from each other, not only 
in place of abode, but in moral character. From this 
time Abraham is represented by them as the uncle — 
“ noble, generous, magnanimous.” Lot as the neph- 
ew, — “ selfish, grasping, mean.” And the new char- 
acter here given to Lot is made to decide the moral 
quality of all his future actions. To the end of his 
life no opportunity is omitted to reproach him with a 
sordid motive. Thus all along through life the 
misfortune with him is made to die back in that sep- 
aration. 

This is what we are now to examine. We shall 
consider the subject, first supposing the common 
understanding of expositors is correct, that the valley 
now occupied by the Dead Sea is one of the two parts 
denoted in the text by “ right ” and “ left,” (a fallacy 
to be considered in its place), and that the hill or 
19 


20 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


mountain country, Canaan, Gen. xiii.12, is the 
other. 

FIRST VIEW. 

The separation was at Abraham’s suggestion — the 
plan for carrying it out, also his. Lot, it is admitted, 
fell in with the suggestion and complied with the ar- 
rangement. These being the facts in the case, for 
Abraham afterwards to have been found complaining 
would have declared him the most unreasonable of 
men. But Abraham was never known to give the 
slightest intimation of there being any wrong on the 
part of Lot — a third fact worthy of note. And, with 
these three facts before them, what shall we say of 
those who make complaint for Abraham, accusing 
Lot, for the part he took in that transaction, of being 
“selfish,” “grasping,” “taking advantage of his 
uncle’s generous nature” ? Such a complaint, it 
seems to us, is unbecoming reasonable men. 

SECOND VIEW. 

"We may justly suppose that the aim of Abraham 
in his arrangement was that both parties should be 
perfectly satisfied. We think the previous harmony 
between them shows that he must have been skilled in 
arrangements to such an end. This purpose was 
sufficiently worthy without attributing to him any 
intention of being generous. No better proof is 
needed that this was the object in view than the per- 
fect adaptation of his arrangement to that end. 
There is room enough; and Abraham says, “ If thou 


LOT 


21 


wilt take to the left hand, then I will go to the right; 
or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to 
the left.” No words could better have signified that 
it would make no difference with him which part Lot 
took. This left no possibility for Abraham to be 
otherwise than perfectly satisfied whichever part 
Lot should take. Nothing remains in order to the full 
accomplishment of his purpose but for Lot to take 
the part he likes the better. If he does not do this, we 
cannot rely upon his being satisfied and Abraham’s 
plan will be frustrated. Abraham himself will not be 
satisfied. If he does not do this, it may seem to 
Abraham like regarding his words under the color of 
deceit. Every consideration makes it becoming in 
Lot to take the part he likes better. We presume he 
did so, for he seems to have taken the part better 
adapted to his occupation. The river and the brooks 
did attract his eyes, and he pushed into the valley, 
pleased with the thought of them, and it no doubt 
increased the satisfaction of Abraham and Sarah that 
he went away in good spirits. As for any undue 
desire of gain, he appears to have been as innocent 
as the shepherd boy who, instead of leaving his flocks 
to scanty and withered herbage, leads them on to 
some green oasis. Thus Abraham’s purpose was 
achieved in full. 

THIRD VIEW. 

The position uniformly assumed that one part was 
greatly superior to the other, and making this position 
the basis of Abraham’s generosity is, in the first place, 


22 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


embarrassing to Abraham himself, for he must have 
been conscious of this superiority or there would 
have been no generosity in the case, but the words of 
the proposal imply, not only that he would as soon 
have one part as the other, but that in his view, all 
things considered, one part was as good as the other. 
Thus to make him generous we have to take from him 
his sincerity. He would prefer, we think, that we let 
his sincerity alone. 

But the assumption that one part was greatly supe- 
rior to the other is turned to a worse account than to 
make Abraham generous. Lot, they say, takes the 
better part, and therefore they denounce him as “ self- 
ish, ungrateful and mean.” Abraham is generous and 
even magnanimous for making the offer: Lot, selfish 
and mean for accepting it. Here we beg leave to 
demur. No true ethics have ever made the mere 
acceptance of a good offer mean. More kindly 
natures have been chilled, more friendships inter- 
rupted, more peace destroyed, by refusing good offers 
than by accepting them. Fannie comes home from 
school with a luscious apple which Jennie gave her. 
Jennie’s parents are poor. “ And was that the only 
apple she had?” “ It was.” “Child,” exclaims the 
mother, “ you should not have taken it. It was self- 
ish and ungenerous in you.” “ Yes, mother,” says 
the little mistress in ethics, “ but I thought of all 
those scuppernongs uncle sent us, and I knew 
you would be willing for me to take her a few clusters 
of them to-morrow.” She did this — and what a new 
relation sprung up between the two girls — a friend- 


LOT 


23 


ship to last through life. The apple caused it, because 
it was not refused. Take Lot’s own case — call Abra- 
ham’s proposal generous : have it that Lot did not ac- 
cept in the manner he did: notice how it might have 
embarrassed him to give a reason which would not 
have been a reflection upon Abraham. Would it do 
to intimate that his uncle could not afford it — thus 
calling into question his ability to understand his own 
affairs? Would it do to intimate that he did not 
really mean what he said, thus making his magna- 
nimity to consist in big talk, a kind of Arab bombast? 
Would it do to even dream of a sinister motive, as 
if Abraham, in advance, was making a hush^offering 
to Lot, so that he would not “ vex his soul” with cer- 
tain domestic improprieties about to follow? Or, 
would it do to admit that he was deterred by the fear 
of being placed under obligation to such a man as 
Abraham? Thus it becomes quite obvious that, as in 
the case of the schoobgirl, so in respect to Lot, in no 
way could he have managed more becomingly, or so 
as to have been less chargeable for lack of generosity 
than to have acted just as he did. If afterwards 
Abraham had become poor, who can say there would 
have been no scuppernong clusters to make it all 
right? 

Put it down, the ethics which make it mean to ac- 
cept a good offer are false. They make generous of- 
fers impossible. How can an offer be generous , if to 
accept it declares a man mean? More than this, 
they turn what is commonly understood as generous 
offers into insults. According to these ethics Lot 


24 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


could have reflected, “You make me this generous 
offer, do you? At the same time you know well 
enough you would accuse me of being mean should I 
accept it. How then can I regard your offer other- 
wise than as an insult? ” 

The acceptance of an offer must he expected or it 
cannot be generous; and, if it should come to be 
understood that the acceptance makes one liable to 
the charge of meanness, what person, however gener- 
ous, would ever make a generous offer? Thus the 
ethics of Lot’s detractors would secure us against all 
chances of erring as he did. 

But it is their darling theory, and how they cling 
to it, “ If Lot had possessed the noble nature of his 
uncle, he would have taken the poorer part.” Here 
is some comfort after all, comfort for the elegant girl 
who did choose the most worthless of her suitors for 
her husband. Let no one murmur as if she “ threw 
herself away,” for, by her choice she rose to the 
“ noble nature ” of Abraham. It was always a won- 
der that my old acquaintance in the East, coming into 
this new country, did accept, at the offer of the gov- 
ernment, a rough and stony place for his farm instead 
of a rich and level tract lying by the side of it, which 
he could have had at the same price. I understand 
now; he had the “noble nature of his uncle.” Here, 
too, is revealed something quite creditable to the Bap- 
tists of a former generation. They did choose every 
out'ofdhe'Way place for a meetingdiouse. They could 
have had central locations just as well as not, but — 
we see it now — their “ noble natures ” forbade. We 


LOT 


25 


are becoming as bad as Lot. Now, when a town pro- 
prietor gives us our choice of lots, we follow Lot’s 
exampe — take the best lot — the “selfish, grang 
wretches that we are! 

FOURTH VIEW. 

After long and loud denunciation of Lot as “greedy” 
for taking the better part, his detractors are suddenly 
berating him as “ foolish ” for taking the part he did. 
This better part turns out to be a foolish part — a 
ivorse part — the part beset with trouble and danger — 
fire and brimstone! Yet this very part — this accursed 
part — he should have left to Abraham: and, if he only 
had done so, it would have made him Abraham’s 
equal, and stamped his character as generous forever. 
There is nothing like detraction to bring these jewels 
of consistency into fair display. 

FIFTH VIEW. 

There is a way of contemplating this transaction 
so as to make Abraham appear generous. The only 
objection that can be offered to it is that it makes 
Lot generous also. Without calling Abraham’s sin- 
cerity into question, Lot’s intuitive sense might have 
detected in his uncle, or in Sarah, a lurking prefer- 
ence for one part over the other. Now it could not 
have been the part chosen by Lot. The place where 
they were was already Abraham’s selection, his 
choice. Though one part was essentially as good as 
the other, yet it might be a sacrifice of feeling to 
give up the place already sacred to them. They did 


26 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


not know but Lot might have feelings to be con- 
sulted, also. Thus the offer may be considered as 
waiving their feelings (not right, or temporary 
advantage) and essentially saying, “ Here, Lot, is a 
goodly place and you may prefer to keep right along 
where you are; if you do, we will go yonder.” But 
Lot would not allow this. He thought it would be a 
greater trial foi his uncle to leave than he was aware 
of. He was the younger — it belonged to him to try 
a new place. He did so , journeying into the valley 
and pleased withal, as we have said. This view of 
the affair is in keeping with all that we know of the 
two men up to this time. It is beautiful, each show- 
ing a delicate regard for the feelings of the other. It 
is generous Abraham, and it is also generous Lot, 
Who would have it otherwise? 

ANOTHER VIEW. 

It is possible that the nature of Lot’s choice has 
not been fairly comprehended. The idea that the 
“plain of Jordan” is one of those parts designated 
by Abraham as “ the left ” and “ the right,” may be 
entirely erroneous. We have seen all along that the 
separation has not appeared to be according to the 
terms of his proposal. “ If thou depart to the right, 
I will go to the left.” Lot departed and, “ jour- 
neyed , ” which is more than those terms indicated; 
but Abraham seems to have stayed pretty much 
where he was; which is less than those terms indi- 
cated. Again, this idea that “ the plain ” was one of 
the parts supposes that, at the time of the arrange- 


LOT 


27 


ment, Abraham and Lot were on the line between 
“the plain ” and hill or mountain country, but they 
were not. They were about midway between the 
Jordan and the Great Sea. I have no idea that when 
Abraham spake of “the right ” and “ the left,” he had 
a thought of the Jordan valley. The country to the 
east, before coming to the valley, was ample enough 
for one; the country west, ample enough for the 
other . 1 Situated as they were, the proposal antici- 
pated no “ journeying ” of either party — no occu- 
pancy of the valley by either; but that they both 
were to remain in the hill country: both moving in- 
deed, but neither “ journeying .” But the separation 
turns out to be a different thing. How are we to 
account for it? Only in this way. Lot never 
accepted the proposition .” When it was made, dis- 
creet and wise as it was (and it may have been 
generous also), it is said “Lot lifted up his eyes,” 
implying a distant survey. It was so — to look from 
that place afterwards known as Sichem (Sychar) to 
that part of the valley contemplated. The scene 
greets his imagination as, no doubt, he saw it on his 
return from Egypt. And now the answer to the 


1 More probable it is that Abraham, in making the proposal, 
is supposed to face the east. This would exclude the Jordan 
valley from consideration, or at least leave it as much to the one 
as to the other: the arrangement being for one to “ depart to 
the north, and the other to go to the south” We here quote 
from the learned Dr. W. H. Young. “In Hebrew the Mediterra- 
nean is called the ‘hinder sea.’ And the proper name of South- 
ern Arabia is Arabia Yemen which strictly means right hand, 
though the other meaning of ‘ Yemen,' namely, ‘ happy ’ has been 
perpetuated in the name ‘Arabia Felex.’ ” 


28 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


proposition is not given — this link in the narrative is 
left for the common sense of the reader to supply. 
It may have been about as follows: “There is no 
need, uncle, of your going either right or left, or be- 
ing put to the trouble of moving at all. Here you 
built your first altar, and when you passed on and 
went into Egypt, I know how you longed to return, 
how glad you were to get back. Stay where you 
are. I will take neither right nor left. Yonder 
stretches all that valley of the Jordan — enough for 
me, certainly. There is the river and all the brooks — 
no need to dig wells or draw water there; and it will 
break up all communication between our herdsmen, 
for certain.” This answer is supported by what 
followed. 

1. Lot is represented as immediately “journeying” 

off. 

2. Abraham is not so represented, as everyone 
must have noticed; he appears to have stayed where 
he was. 

3. Immediately after the separation it is said 
“ Abraham dwelled in the land of Canaan,” just 
where he had been, the only difference being that 
Lot was not with him. “ And Lot dwelled in the 
cities of the plain” 

4. Notice what the Lord said to Abraham, “ After 
that Lot was separated from him , ‘Lift up now 
thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, 
northward and southward, and eastward and west- 
ward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I 
give it.’” No Lot there either to the right or to 
the left. 


LOT 


29 


5. Notice also, the Lord says further to Abraham. 
“Walk through the land in the length of it and in 
the breadth of it.” Probably it was not till he had 
done this that he made any essential change in his 
residence and finally gave preference to Mamre. 
Thus, when he did move, it was not in a direction 
opposite to that which Lot had taken, but very nigh 
the same. From that first “ place of the altar ” to 
Mamre the direction does not appear to vary more 
than thirty degrees from the straight line to Sodom. 
They never departed the one to the right hand and 
the other to the left. 

All these circumstances bring us to the conclusion 
that whilst Abraham, in his proposal to Lot, acted in 
conformity with all his past character, as thoroughly 
decent, generous, and wise, yet Lot, instead of choos- 
ing the “ best part,” took neither ; unwilling that his 
uncle should be disturbed in what was already his 
chosen abode, he vacated the whole to him. The more 
we consider the subject, the more apparent it becomes 
that there is no possible reason for contemplating 
those worthies otherwise than as equals in high 
moral worth — so linked together in goodness that to 
praise the one is to commend the other: and as for 
censuring Lot, they who presume to do it should 
never venture one solitary encomium upon his uncle. 

II . — Lot in Sodom. 

“ He did one thing that was very wrong: he went 
to live in a city called Sodom.” Reflection. — “ Keep 
out of Sodom.” 


30 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


The above is about the mildest censure passed upon 
Lot in the expositions for Sabbath=schools : and this 
appears to be the common view entertained concern- 
ing his residence in Sodom. We think it unreason- 
able, unscriptural, and that the idea of his being re- 
garded in any sense as a warning was altogether 
foreign to the divine purpose. We are referred to 
the time when Lot first looked toward Sodom, and are 
told that, in his choice of the plain, “ worldly advan- 
tage was his consideration.” To this grave censure we 
say, What of it? Is the worthy Christian who car- 
ries on business in one street instead of another 
ashamed to tell you it is because he can make more 
money there? And here comes a blessed, good emi- 
grant to the prairies — “What have you come for?” 
Is he ashamed to say it is to better his temporal condi- 
tion? I respect that minister who said he had a call 
to Bristol and should go : for there he could have eight 
hundred dollars, and where he was, he was not quite 
sure of having anything. There is no man so saintly 
but he is found now and then doing something for 
his “ temporal advantage.” Lot’s was the most in- 
nocent case imaginable. He was going where he 
would not have to dig wells or draw water. There is 
more reason to call him a shirk than a worldling. 

The next censure is, that by advancing into “ the 
plain” he showed a “disregard for religious privi- 
leges.” But if a trial is pending upon this point, we 
must go to the separation — for those worthies, both 
uncle and nephew, could have shown regard for re- 
ligious privileges only by keeping together; and we 


LOT 


31 


must ask, Who first proposed the separation? Not 
Lot. Still they do say he showed a shocking will- 
ingness to encounter wicked society. Now, this cen- 
sure is made by those who suppose “ the plain” one 
of the parts designated by Abraham in his proposal; 
he, then, had shown himself perfectly wiliing to risk 
the society of the plain. Why, then, blame one and 
not the other? For both are in the same category. 

We do not care how bad the place a man resides 
in; we have no right to accuse him of hazarding his 
virtue for gain if, whilst pursuing an honest calling, 
he continues firm in his religious principles, and 
blameless in his example. It is a recommendation 
to a youth to dwell in this city, if, amid its vices, he 
clings to that purity which he brought with him from 
his country home. We have seen the godly man giv- 
ing up his comfortable home, surrounded by the best 
Christian influence, to dwell in a rude cabin amid 
the moral desolations of the frontier. Now we do not 
care what his aim was in this change; if, the change 
being made and finding himself in bad society, he 
seeks to improve it by frowning on vice and encour- 
aging virtue, we find no fault with him. It is not 
God’s economy to centralize the good. His policy is 
aggressive and He carries it out by scattering His worth- 
ies; some in one place, some in another, and — was it 
wrong that He should have just one in Sodom? That 
the passage, “ But the men of Sodom were wicked and 
sinners against the Lord exceedingly,” was brought in 
to show the guilt of Lot in pitching his tent towards 
that place, is an unjust inference. God may have 


32 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


known that such was their character whilst Abraham 
and Lot were perfectly unconscious of it. True schol- 
arship, we think, understands the passage as intro- 
duced to prepare the mind of the reader for what is 
coming; as much as to say, “These are the circum- 
stances which show how innocently Lot came to 
reside in a wicked city, destined to be destroyed.” 
The charge, then, that Lot took up his residence in 
Sodom facing all its wickedness and corruption for 
the sake of worldy gain, has scarcely the poor plea to 
support it that it might have been so. He might have 
erred when he looked, when he chose, when he pitched 
his tent towards, but there is nothing in the descrip- 
tion of events as given by Moses, in the nature of 
things, or reason of the case, to justify the censure. 
We could as well make accusation against the best 
men that ever lived, if only it can be proved that they 
laid their plans judiciously for an honest livelihood. 

But preachers will have it that Lot entered Sodom 
“ dazzled with the prospect of gain.” And that God, by 
way of punishment, had him scooped up by the hosts 
of Chedorlaom er, him and his goods, and carried off 
himself and the women as prisoners. This, they say, 
“was meant as a warning for him to quit the place.” 
But such an idea is incongruous . with the Word. 
Who does not regard Abraham’s rescue of Lot as a 
grand achievement — his return with Lot and the 
women, Melchizedek coming out to meet them and 
honoring the occasion with the bread and wine? 
(Sarah and that trusty servant Eliezer may have been 
there also.) It may have been the last time Abraham 


LOT 


33 


ever saw Lot, a scene rarely surpassed in moral love- 
liness — tender — unworldly enough, after forty cen- 
turies, to detach our minds from earth in the hope we 
ourselves may yet commingle with the same spirits 
around the eternal Melchizedek in the “King’s 
Dale” above. But how that achievement loses its 
grandeur, and the honor paid to it by Melchizedek 
becomes void of beauty and fitness — how we feel 
our souls robbed, and God and His Word robbed, by 
the imputation that he, for whom the exploit was 
made and its success so honored, was only a “ greedy 
worldling ” whose very presence in Sodom was offen- 
sive to God! The moment we bring ourselves to 
think it a wrong — a “great wrong for Lot to be in 
Sodom,” the exploit of Abraham in restoring him to 
his abode there becomes inglorious, and the honor 
paid to it by Melchizedek entirely out of place. 

Ere long we find that God could not destroy the 
city whilst Lot remained in it; and yet detractors see 
no compliment to Lot in this. We have heard of 
priceless men, for whom God would save a city, but 
never knew before that those men are to be con- 
demned for having gone to the city, or for remaining 
there. The day before the overthrow, Abraham, con- 
cerned for the fate of Lot, drew from God an ex- 
pression of His intended policy, namely, that He 
would spare the city for the sake of the righteous 
however few there might be of them. (Abraham by 
approximation arrived at the conclusion that the 
city would be saved for the sake of Lot alone. See 
Gen. xix. 29, in connection with xviii. 23-33.) 


84 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


What follows? He resolves to destroy the city, but 
cannot do it whilst one certain man remains there — 
no greater praise ever conferred upon a mortal — 
whereupon He has this man removed, and because He 
did not destroy the city until he was removed, He 
considered — and He knew Abraham would so con- 
sider it — equivalent to saving the city for his sake. 
God then would save the city because he was in it, 
yet, as expositors have it, it was a very wrong thing 
for him to be in Sodom. Yes, they tell us he must 
have been corrupt declare him “demoralized,” and 
bid the young take warning from Lot to “keep out of 
Sodom.” This is virtually scandalizing God before 
the young. They who censure Lot for being in 
Sodom, should know they have no right to do so un- 
less he became corrupt, and, as if they understood 
this, they proceed to have it that he did become cor- 
rupt, applying to him the Scripture: “ Let him that 
thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” — present- 
ing on the blackboard the process of his fall. “ He 
looked ” — “he chose ” — “ tended toward ” — “in Sod- 
om.” What of it all? Nothing, unless he sunk in 
Sodom; therefore they virtually accuse him of this, 
and reaccuse him when they hold him up as a man 
to be shunned — make him a warning — speaking of 
him as “demoralized,” “unworthy of respect.” All 
this is virtual denial of God's Word — more than this: 
it accuses God of a great blunder, as much as to say, 
when He goes about selecting the precious man for 
whom He would spare a city that righteousness may 
be exalted, it turns out to be a low^rate specimen, an 


LOT 


85 


egregious worldling lurking in the city for the most 
groveling purposes. No man, Christian or infidel, 
ever took a position beset with so much inconsist- 
ency as to arraign Lot for being in Sodom. 

Let us pursue the facts — something further we know . 
The angels enter Sodom on their visit of inspection 
— enter as men. They do not have to search for Lot. 
How soon he is at their side! How quick his eye to 
recognize the godly! How prompt his heart and 
hand to extend to them his sympathy and aid! Did 
they suspect that it was a wrong thing for such a 
man to be in Sodom? He would not hear to their 
running any risks by staying in the streets. His house 
was their asylum. These things we know , and it 
would be ungenerous in any reader not to un- 
derstand from these events as the Apostle understood 
(Heb. viii. 2), namely, that it was Lot’s habitual 
practice thus to be on the lookout for any who might 
need the aid of a friend in that city. Was it wrong 
that there should be just one such man there? I 
would that every tongue that has intimated any such 
idea would murmur its apology to the world. There 
are men and women of the same stamp in this day in 
Chicago, in New York and all our cities; priceless 
they are, and what would cities be without them? 
And who will dare tell us it is wrong for them to be 
there? To talk in this way is to cloud the face of 
virtue in gloom, to freeze the blood in her veins. It 
is to call an Apostle (as well as Abraham) to account 
for commending this very man when he said to the 
Hebrews, “ Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, 


36 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


for some have thereby entertained angels unawares.” 

But more: Lot could risk his life in the protec- 
tion of the innocent — venture amid a delirious mob, 
remonstrating with them, employing every art to 
dissuade them from their vicious purposes. And 
again, was it wrong that there should be just one 
such hero in that city? To give protection to the 
friendless is one grand virtue; to remonstrate with 
the wicked is another; and these combined make the 
Christian hero. The Apostle tells us this was Lot’s 
custom “ from day to day.” And that any Christian 
pen, after invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit, (“Sun- 
day-school man,” in The Examiner) should apply to 
this very man the sneering words “selfish,” “coward- 
ly,” “ demoralized,” provokes a holy indignation. A 
pen so false to truth, if not thrown away entirely, 
should have a long furlough from the service of Bib- 
lical exposition. 

As to Lot’s expedient to divert the mob from their 
purpose in respect to his guests, by proposing to 
surrender his daughters, there are two constructions 
to be put upon it without making him at all “ infa- 
mous.” If there had been any remains of decency in 
the crowd, such a proposal would have shamed them 
out of their purpose; and in the expectation of such 
a result he may have made it — perhaps without duly 
considering the risk he was running. We may look 
upon it as an unsafe expedient. Seemingly, too, 
Abraham imperiled the chastity of his wife. (Gen. 
xii. 19.) But we can afford to spare our censure in 
respect to both, in the reflection that they understood 


LOT 


37 


better than we do the nature of the parties they dealt 
with, and knew best whether they were incurring any 
dangers beyond what wisdom and virtue would 
dictate. 

Next, we may suppose that, from the time the 
guests entered his house, Lot may have become 
aware of their character as superhuman; under this 
supposition the expedient may be regarded as meri- 
torious. He is willing to sacrifice his family honor 
(more than Abraham ever sacrificed for God) to the 
honor of these visitors from heaven. Where a man 
of our day is found (a rare event) to prefer the honor 
of the church above the honor of his family it is an 
approach to the virtue of Lot. This view makes a 
contrast between the uncle and the nephew in favor 
of the latter. Abraham seemed to risk the purity of 
his wife for a temporal advantage. Lot did risk his 
life, and seemed willing to put his daughters in jeop- 
ardy, rather than that insult should be offered to 
angelic guests. Herein was virtue more free from 
the dross of human frailty than we commonly find it. 

We come next to the passage, “ He seemed as one 
that mocked to his sonsdndaw.” Note the comments: 
“The man who had so long neglected to warn is not 
believed now.” “How conscience must have stung 
him as he went back.” “His life was such that when 
he warned his sons-indaw,” etc. Now men who, like 
these expositors, can make accusations without a 
particle of evidence to sustain them, are indeed 
mockers of truth, but we doubt whether they have 
any conscience to sting them. 


38 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


The expositors fairly gloat over their chance for de- 
traction when they come to those terrible words, “ he 
lingered .” “Oh, that cord that bound him,” they 
exclaim, “the love of the world!” They dwell much 
upon what “ Lot lost,” and are no doubt troubled 
about it — much more troubled than Lot was himself. 
They must have it that, like Achan, he wanted to 
save some precious thing. They do judge, no doubt, 
others by themselves. As for Lot, he never craved 
their commiseration for anything he lost. 

Recall the scene. The first part of the night spent 
in remonstrating with the mob — then, at the direction 
of the angels, he went out in search of his “ sonsdn* 
law,” and failing to bring them back with him, he 
but reaches his home when the angels bid him haste, 
saying, “ Take thy wife and thy two daughters which 
are here.” Now, the first direction (Chap. xix. 12) 
implied that quite a number were to escape, and 
perhaps that supplies were also to be taken out, and 
time given; but with this second direction, how much 
comes upon him at once; the flight is now, no wait- 
ing for these “sons-indaw” to change their mind. 
What! Only those four to escape? And with no 
supplies? We have no doubt they were human, and 
that they may all have acted as if they did not know 
what they were about. 

But, blended with the censure for “ lingering” is 
another reproach. “ Why did he not put straight to 
Mamre?” “Ah,” says the spiteful interpreter, “he 
was ashamed to do that, because he had lost every- 
thing he had. He was too proud to appear before 


LOT 


39 


Abraham poor! ” Where, again, does the expositor 
derive these notions except from his own impure 
breast? The truth in the case presents quite a dif- 
ferent reason why Lot did not at once repair to 
Abraham. The record of Lot’s escape shows that 
Sodom was situated on the eastern acclivity from the 
plain. Therefore the nearest escape to safety was 
eastward, away from Mamre. No one need doubt but 
when flight was first proposed to Lot he thought of 
nothing else but hurrying to Mamre. When, there- 
fore, he found the time so short and the danger so 
great as to forbid any attempt to cross the plain, in 
order to reach Mamre, may not this very circum- 
stance account for his confusion? At first it may 
have seemed that the angels were leading the wrong 
way. It may have been hard for him to understand 
that time would not be given to cross the plain. 
This was possibly the hardest thing for him to com- 
prehend — not that the angels were leading him 
and his family away from Sodom, but away from 
Abraham. How soon the fiery sea was rolling be- 
tween him and Abraham, and for aught we know he 
was severed from him forever. And as for Abraham, 
when on that morning he went out and stood where 
the day before he had received that pledge from 
Jehovah, now looking towards Sodom and Gomorrah, 
beholding the smoke as it went up like the smoke of 
a furnace, who can say but Abraham himself “lin- 
gered,” confused by the course events had taken, left 
at that time and perhaps for a long period, without 
the knowledge of Lot’s escape? And when, eventually, 


40 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


it was made known to him how God, by “ sending Lot 
out from the midst of the overthrow ” had virtually 
kept His word — saved the city for his sake — who 
knows how far this discovery may have assisted his 
faith and made him move straight forward when 
afterwards he was called to the sacrifice of his son, 
knowing that, as there had been an escape in the case 
of Lot, God could plan another in behalf of Isaac? 

There is one censure upon Lot which we would 
suppose the offspring of hate — the sneering taunt 
that he was never able to “ count a single convert.” 
We freely grant that this sublime end of godly 
service — seeing how many converts lie could count — 
Lot probably never thought of. He probably never 
dreamed of any “ special call to the ministry,” or of 
having publicly been set apart thereto, and though 
“ vexed,” it was not upon questions pertaining to 
“ success,” or “ salary.” But if it be found that he 
did what every man is bound to do by virtue of his 
“ ordination ” as a child of God, we give him high 
rank in the ministry. If he was one of those rarest 
and most valued of servants whose example was 
right — who could do as he had opportunity, ever 
ready to defend virtue, recognizing right, and frown- 
ing on wrong, and this for right’s own sake and God’s, 
converts or no converts, he was one of God’s noble- 
men — a genuine preacher of righteousness. 

And yet, this very reflection cast upon Lot betrays 
the consciousness on the part of his accusers of there 
being something to lead to the impression that he 
was virtually a preacher. Something of this sort 


LOT 


41 


there is, and enough of it. Our Saviour puts him 
side by side with Noah. “ The day that Noah went 
into the ark the flood came.” “ The same day that 
Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone 
out of heaven.” No other view can be entertained 
than that Lot occupied the same relation in respect 
to the Sodomites that Noah occupied in respect to 
the antedeluvians of his time. The people of Nineveh 
repented at the preaching of Jonah and were saved. 
Why were not the people of Sodom and Gomorrah 
saved? They were less obdurate than the people of 
Capernaum, but why were they not saved? A 
prophet tells us plainly, “ They repented not.” (Jer. 
xx. 30.) But who preached to them but Lot? He 
had no converts indeed, and this was the very reason 
they were destroyed. The very commentators that 
arraign Lot for no converts, tell us that if there had 
been ten righteous (and to have been such they must 
have been converts) the city would have been saved. 
This clears the skirts of Lot — pays him the highest 
compliment as a preacher. We think vastly of an 
evangelist if, after a four weeks’ campaign, he (not 
God) numbers a hundred converts; but what should 
we think if, after such a campaign, there being no 
converts, the city should be burned up, himself, how- 
ever, removed into safety by the hands of angels? 
But there is a certainty as to Lot’s character in the 
premises. We have noticed what the angels saw of 
Lot. Now, what of the people? They were so 
hardened that Lot’s example, his persuasions, and his 
remonstrances had no effect upon them. This was 


42 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


precisely what the angels saw of the people, and 
herein they found that the sin of Sodom was very 
great according to the “ cry of it.” And therefore 
not a word more was to be said; only, showing every 
possible consideration for Lot and his family, the 
city was forthwith to be destroyed. Lot was, and had 
been, the genuine preacher of righteousness — faith- 
ful — self-denying — persevering — dauntless. And 
shall Christian people hold him up as a subject of 
scandal, a character to be shunned, and load him with 
reproaches because he went and lived in Sodom ? 

In conclusion, as his detractors have expressed 
“ the hope that Lot did repent before he died,” our 
anxiety settles to them , instead of him. Long since 
he passed the period of his probation, and hope for 
him is needless: but as for these other sinners who 
are still in probation, may they improve a part of it 
in sincere repentance for their virtual denial of God’s 
Word in calumniating Lot, because “he went and 
dwelled in a city called Sodom,” 

III. — Initial misconceptions as to Abraham’s 
concern for Sodom. 

The following paragraph shows how an able editor 
follows in the common track of moralizers on Abra- 
ham’s supposed regard for Sodom. 

Abraham’s Prayer . — Abraham prayed for Sodom, 
yet the city was not spared. There were not ten 
righteous in the city, even judged by the low standard 
by which Lot was accounted righteous. Abraham’s 


LOT 


43 


prayer was so conditioned that it could not be an- 
swered. . . . The 29th verse of Gen. xix. 

seems to show that Lot was spared, not for his own 
sake, but for Abraham’s. Here is the verse: “And 
it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the 
plain that God remembered Abraham and sent Lot 
out of the midst of the overthrow, when He over- 
threw the cities in which Lot dwelt.” 

At last the pen, so habitually correct, has lapsed, 
all at once, into an expression of several misconcep- 
tions, as it seems to us, from the inspection of a para- 
graph copied in part as above. 

In the title itself, the use of the word prayer is not 
quite fortunate. The text (Gen. xviii. 33) calls it 
“communing.” We think the secular press of our 
time would get it about right and say — Abraham took 
his opportunity to interview the Lord. He was too 
shrewd to pray before understanding the bearings of 
the case, so as to know what to pray for, or, indeed- 
whether to pray at all. In the interviewing we see 
nothing answering to the nature of prayer, but simply 
an arrival at God’s purpose, which must have been 
eminently satisfactory to Abraham, leaving him 
nothing to pray for, unless it was a thankful heart. 

We note next the first thing asserted. “Abraham 
prayed for Sodom.” We think Abraham never inter- 
viewed Jehovah on behalf of Sodom. It was on 
behalf of the righteous, a few of whom, at least one, 
he was quite sure lived in that city. Like an able 
interviewer, he presents his case at once and with 
great clearness. “Wilt Thou destroy the righteous 


44 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


with the wicked?” We do not think he is here 
deftly taking advantage of God’s regard for the right- 
eous in order to save the wicked. Yet this must be 
the understanding if we assert that he was pleading 
for Sodom. 

This construction put on the case leads to another 
which we consider more unwarranted still. “ Abra- 
ham’s prayer was so conditioned that it could not 
be answered.” But God acted square up to what He 
allowed Abraham to draw from Him as to His pur- 
pose respecting the righteous; for we have warrant 
to say, that in that interviewing is an example of 
what is allowed in science; namely, a conclusion justly 
accepted, though arrived at only by approximation: 
the conclusion in this case being that for the sake of 
even the approximated one God would not destroy 
the city. God showed His determination to act 
square up to what was approximated in the inter- 
view, when He said, (xix. 22,) “ Haste thee — for I 
cannot do anything till thou be come thither” — 
till Lot, the approximated one, was safe in Zoar. 

That pen, therefore, is not quite correct when it 
says, in effect, the city could not be spared because 
there were not ten righteous in it. It was spared, 
and had to be spared, so long as Lot was there. 
According as it was “ conditioned ” in the interview, 
neither the city nor the plain itself could have been 
destroyed with Lot in it any more than if there had 
been the “ fifty ” or a thousand righteous in it. 

That pen, still erring, says: “Lot was spared, not 
for his own sake, but for Abraham’s.” Now, when 


LOT 


45 


God has fixed upon an endowment which a man 
must have in order to be saved, and a man has the 
endowment, and God Himself says he has it, then, 
when God saves him, what occasion is there for any 
one to tell us he was saved for some other mortal’s 
sake? Was anything in the fate of Sodom or any of 
its inhabitants “ conditioned ” upon Abraham — 
upon his prayers, his faith, or God’s regard for him? 
If the Sodomites were destroyed on their own 
account — because they were wicked, just as truly Lot 
was saved on his own account — because he was 
righteous. We do not think Gen. xix. 29 shows 
what is claimed, that “ Lot was saved for Abraham’s 
sake.” “ God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out 
of the midst of the overthrow.” How can anyone 
read this and keep the communing of the day previ- 
ous out of his mind? In that interviewing Abraham 
had predicated everything on the idea that in order 
to save the righteous God would have to save the 
city. Now, the above passage comes in directly after 
the statement of Abraham’s coming out in the morn- 
ing to stand where the interview occurred and see the 
smoke going up: and, upon the supposition that, 
sooner than entertain the idea that Lot had been 
found defective, he would think that God had for- 
gotten His pledged policy, as drawn from Him on that 
occasion, the inspired penman says: “No, God did 
not forget Abraham; but instead of sparing the city 
as Abraham expected, in order to save Lot, He first 
got Lot out of the city and then destroyed it.” 
Thus Abraham was taught and all generations are to 


46 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


know that it is not necessary for God, when He 
undertakes to save the righteous, to save the wicked 
also. 

The passage quoted, we think, shows us the “ com- 
muning ” in its true light — shows that when the de- 
struction of Sodom was intimated, Abraham’s mind 
turned at once on Lot, and that God, conscious of 
this, was also thinking of Lot, though his name was 
suppressed by both. It shows that the conclusion ar- 
rived at by Abraham was, as we have stated, an 
approximated one, and that God so understood it — 
that God, too, when He destroyed the city, but had 
first got Lot out of it, considered it equivalent to 
saving the city for his sake. The policy avowed was 
not to save the city for Abraham’s sake, but to save 
the city for Lot’s sake. He saves Lot without saving 
the city; but does this make it that it was for Abra- 
ham’s sake? 

And the pen we have held in such honor writes: 
“There were not ten righteous in the city even 
judged by the low standard according to which Lot 
was accounted righteous.” “Low standard,” was it? 
Abraham judged Lot righteous, or rather knew it, 
and we have reason to suspect his standard was not 
low , the just supposition being that it was regulated 
by what he knew of the mind of God, for which 
knowledge his opportunity was distinguished. And 
how certain, too, the angels were, that Lot was right- 
eous! Their standard must have been rather high, for 
they probably knew, more perfectly than Abraham, 
the mind of God. The inspired Peter — how was his 


LOT 


47 


standard regulated? By the lofty ethics of Christ. 
But here we are reminded, it was the Lord Himself, 
the preexistent Christ, who, in the most signal 
manner, declared Lot righteous. Any talk, therefore, 
about the standard by which He judged, is irreverent. 
The Lord is not man. He gets at the truth on such a 
question, and on all questions, without any standard. 
To suppose He needs any implies the charge of im- 
perfection. 

I have only to say in conclusion — it must be a pen 
of no common ability that can work into a short 
paragraph, like the one placed at the head of this 
article, so many misconceptions upon one subject, that 
subject being about as plain as Moses and Peter 
could make it. Indeed, the question as to who 
makes mistakes does not appear to lie, at this time, 
so much between Ingersoll and Moses as between 
learned expositors and God. 

IV. — God's positive assertions, safe interpreters 
of human actions . 

The record of (( the plain ” has great promi- 
nence in the sacred narrative. From first to last, in 
that record, one man stands out decidedly the ob- 
ject of high consideration with God; all the move- 
ments connected with the doom of those cities revolv- 
ing around him — it is Lot, the central figure in a 
wonderful system of events. Thus inevitably the 
attention of each generation, as it passes, is drawn to 
that one man : and it is on account of his character as 


48 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


righteous that he is made so conspicuous. All the 
circumstances, as recorded, conspire to show him 
righteous in that true sense in which inspiration 
employs the term . 1 The interview between God and 
Abraham shows a settled understanding between them 
that Lot was righteous. His manner of life and his 
course of action, as disclosed under the inspection of 
the angels and referred to by the Apostle and Christ 
Himself, declare him righteous in the strict sense 
— God’s sense. And then God’s signal treatment 
of him, expressly in consideration of his being right- 
eous — all these things make it just as strong a case 
as could be made. It is Lot, singled out by God, 
and in the most signal manner, declared righteous. 

It was of the utmost importance that Lot’s charac- 
ter as righteous should be thus set forth, so as to be 
forever undisputed; for, upon this depends all the 
moral power of that wonderful catastrophe of the 
plain, as a lesson showing God’s benign consideration 
for the righteous in contrast with His awful displeas- 
ure with the wicked. 


1 In this connection we do not ignore the origin of Moab and 
Ammon. Let it snffice, God did not allow the record of that 
origin to close without the significant testimony “ And he per- 
ceived it not.” (Gen. xix. 33, 35.) As for the “ beastly stupefac- 
tion on two successive nights,” we should note the words “They 
made their father drink wine.” It is not necessary to suppose 
they lacked in skill to this end by trying different expedients for 
each night. We think the inspired narrative is such as to leave 
it only to infidel minds to stigmatize Lot. It is well enough to 
note, also, that we never read of any slur being cast upon a 
Moabite or an Ammonite on account of his origin. Certainly, 
neither David nor any of us have ever thought any the less of 
Ruth, his ancestral mother, because she was descended from Lot. 


LOT 


49 


Therefore, the moment we begin a course of inter- 
pretation in disparagement of Lot, we render ourselves 
liable to be viewed in the attitude of disputing the 
accuracy of the inspired delineation. We begin to 
call into question the wisdom of God; we do most 
certainly commence the work of spoiling the great 
lesson so much needed for the good of all genera- 
tions. By impugning every motive, by using all our 
ingenuity to put a bad construction upon every 
action of Lot, little by little, we may come, at length, 
to view him upon a plane of goodness but little re- 
moved from the horrid depths to which the Sodom- 
ites had sunk; and what then? Of course we shall 
find ourselves exclaiming, what does God mean by 
calling such a man righteous? And we may also ask, 
what has become of that line of distinction between 
right and wrong, between the righteous and the wicked, 
which spanned the moral heavens in such grandeur? 
It has faded away so that it no longer engages the 
attention of those who look to us for instruction. 
And what is worse — just in proportion as we bring 
others to agree with us in this view of Lot we bring 
them, if they have minds logically inclined, to adopt 
the conclusion that, if such is the man God singled 
out as righteous, to stand for the admiration of man- 
kind in bold contrast with his fellows who were 
doomed to destruction, the whole affair is a most abom- 
inable imposition. The idea that God could not pro- 
ceed with the overthrow until He got such a man into 
safe quarters is indeed preposterous. If Lot was such 
a character as the New York Examiner over and 


50 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


over has held up before its hundred thousand readers 1 
for them to shun, certainly it was a mistake in God, 
not to have left him to perish in Sodom. The whole 
affair of raining fire and brimstone on the cities of 
the plain was a mistake. It is divested of all its 
power as a terror to the wicked or an encouragement 
to the righteous. The critic has indeed spoken of 
Lot as a “ nonentity of the Bible.” If that is so, 
then the righteousness commended of God as exalting 
a nation, and by which God certainly did exalt that 
one man, is a nonentity also, and the whole transac- 
tion of the plain a miserable farce, and that allusion 
of our Lord to the high consideration paid to Lot as 
recorded in Luke xvii. 29, was but the sanction of 
a great imposition. 

But let the Bible be true ; let Lot's character re- 
main as set forth by inspiration, and the record of 
Sodom and Gomorrah stands an imperishable mon- 
ument overlooking the world, where, as the genera- 
tions of men, one after another, pass along, they see 
boldly represented the doom of the wicked, to warn 
them against a life of sin, while far above stands the 
memorable Lot, rescued from amongst those who 
perished, lustrous with the benediction of heaven, an 
everlasting encouragement to the good — there, also, 
the two inscriptions, each of vast importance to man- 
kind, one declaring the weight of obligation society 
may owe to the presence of one good man; the other, 


1 “ A man for whom no high-toned person could have any 
respect.” “ Cowardly, time-serving, greedy of gain, an ingrate 
and covetous.” “ A nonentity on the divine page.” 


LOT 


51 


how God, when He undertakes to save the righteous 1 * * 4 
does not necessarily have to save the wicked also. 

We think it is high time for Christian expositors to 
stop and consider the propriety, if they find any trouble 
in counting Lot righteous, of pursuing the same 
course in respect to it they do in respect to counting 
Balaam wicked; namely, let the plain and positive 
declarations of God interpret all along the actions of 
his life. And it will be found that they easily chime 
in together in his exaltation — much more easily than 
they seem to coalesce in the abasement of Balaam. 

V . — Misconceptions as to facts — which are 
turned to Lot's disadvantage. 

1. An Error to present Abraham as already in 

possession of Canaan. 

We think Bible expositors should be exact in all 
their statements, and this, even in matters which 
may seem of little moment. If possible they should 
never give the reader a chance to say, “ This is not 
the precise truth.” 

An expositor for the Sabbath-schools, commenting 
on the advance of Joshua upon Jericho, speaks of “ the 
land given to Abraham nearly five centuries before.” 
That word “ given ” does not express the truth, and 
not only so, the use here made of it may inculcate 
error in another respect. We have noticed that the 
expositions on “ the separation ” run as if Abraham 
in his lifetime was actual possessor of Canaan, for 
he was extolled for generosity in making his nephew 


52 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


the offer he did. But that offer was a simple pro- 
posal with nothing in the nature of generosity in- 
tended. It was, however, very discreet, providing 
against any interruption of harmony between the two 
kinsmen. Let the herds separate; Lot’s and his herds- 
men taking, say to the right, and Abraham’s to the 
left. Now, by such an arrangement, which would leave 
no chance for future quarrel between the herdsmen, 
neither party could be said to give anything to the 
other nor receive anything from him. At that time 
one had no claim on the land, or the range even, be- 
yond the other. Afterwards Abraham bought of 
Ephron the field, Machpelah. Beyond this he never 
presumed to own a foot of land in Canaan. But the 
land was graciously promised to his posterity. Cen- 
turies after, Joshua crossed the Jordan and the 
promise took effect in the conquest which followed. 

True, Moses, addressing the two tribes which pro- 
posed to remain in Bashan, uses the expression 
“ which the Lord hath given,” but it is as if the time 
having come for taking possession authorized him to 
speak as if the promise were fulfilled. 

2. An Error to suppose Canaan, the special prom- 
ise, extended east of the Jordan. 

Having spoken of the land as “ given to Abraham 
Hear five centuries before,” the expositor proceeds to 
tell us how it “ extended east of the Jordan.” Here 
seems to be error upon error. Certainly the promised 
Canaan never extended east of the Jordan. 

After Israel, under Joshua, made the conquest, so 
to speak, of Canaan, two tribes and a halLtribe, ac- 


LOT 


53 


cording to a conditional agreement made with Moses, 
were allowed to recross the river and occupy the land 
of Sihon and Og as their possession. But, mark! 
Moses did not subdue the land of Sihon and of Og 
as a part of the promised land, but because those 
kings would not allow a peaceful march through their 
borders to the promised land. See Num. xxi. 21. 

When Moses from Pisgah plead with the Lord, 
“ Let me go over and see the good land,” and the Lord 
hearkened not, but said, “Joshua shall go over before 
this people; he shall cause them to inherit the land 
which thou shalt see,” was Moses already in that land? 
And was Pisgah, where he stood, in that land? 

But what, it may be asked, are we to do with a pas- 
sage like Gen. xv. 18, where God, making a covenant 
with Abraham, says, “Unto thy seed have I given this 
land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, 
the river Euphrates ” ? It means that centuries 
afterwards — centuries after they had entered the 
promised land — the seed of Abraham did conquer 
and possess that great extent of territory. It means, 
too, that this fact is no ground of encouragement, 
whatever, for any talk that the Canaan, known as the 
land of promise, extended east of the Jordan. “ The 
fact here in question is important. A mistake here 
takes too much from the force of the Scripture nar- 
rative; makes its parts conflict with each other; 
weakens our sympathy and interest in the whole. It 
ill befits the inspired pen to make so much ado about 
Moses never setting foot in the promised land — taken 
to Pisgah to see it, and die in sight of it, but never 


54 


CRIPTURE WORTHIES 


entering; giving up his command, and, about to die, 
leaving it for Joshua to pass over and take possession 
— all this ado, we say, if already Moses and the whole 
host of Israel were encamped in the promised land; 
if already they had made two splendid conquests in 
that land. It spoils the very achievement of Joshua, 
on which the expositor is dilating, to tell us how the 
promised Canaan extended east of the Jordan. The 
great doctrinal figure is spoiled if we regard those 
children of the wilderness as entering upon their 
possession, or any part of it, without first crossing 
the Jordan. It makes a kind of half-way covenant — 
half-way in, before being in at all. Even the two 
tribes and a half that arranged to have their portion 
on the east, had themselves to cross the Jordan. 
That flood must be crossed. We do not want the 
doctrinal ideas herein suggested to be destroyed, or 
weakened in any way. 

3. Folly of supposing “ the plain ” one of the 
parts intended by Abraham in his plan of separation. 

It is this unsettled idea as to the true limits of the 
Canaan as promised that has ever led to a serious 
blunder as to the conduct of Lot in the separation. 
We remember the bitter reproaches cast upon him 
by Sunday-school expositors because he chose the 
plain. We remember all that homily suggested be- 
cause “he lifted up his eyes.” fit means simply 
looking afar, as when God told Abraham to lift up 
his eyes.) They accused him of being “greedy, 
choosing the better part” — as if Sodom were a part, 


LOT 


55 


and then as if Sodom would have suited Abraham and 
Sarah ! Then they call Abraham generous for giving 
Lot the chance of taking from him — Sodom! (Here, 
we repeat, they talk just as if Abram already owned 
the land of Canaan.) But the censure of Lot be- 
comes more palpably inconsistent, and we are made 
to see what a confused jumble the whole exposition 
is when we consider where Sodom was; namely, at a 
distance from Abraham’s quarters at the time of the 
separation — and, not only so, but outside of the 
Canaan limits. We pretend to know, as already 
stated, what those limits w T ere on the east, not the 
Jordan valley or “the plain,” but the Jordan itself. 
As for “ the plain,” so far as any part of it was west 
of the river’s bed, that part may have been in Canaan; 
so far as it was east of that bed, it was not in Canaan. 
Now on which side of the plain was Sodom? We say 
on the east side, for we believe the Bible and care not 
what traveler or antiquarian may say to the contrary. 
If Sodom had been on the Canaan side, we believe 
Lot would have escaped on that side, and have been 
at once in the arms of dear Abraham. We believe 
that Sodom was on the east side of the plain and out- 
side of Canaan and, by consequence, such haste as 
was necessary in the case did not permit Lot or the 
angels to think of an escape across the no doubt al- 
ready troubled bed of the river, and thence up the 
western acclivities. The heights eastward were 
their aim, because more readily accessible, Sodom be- 
ing on the east side of the plain. 


56 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


The real transaction was not strictly the “separa- 
tion of Abraham and Lot,” but the removal of Lot 
by divine providence from Canaan, thus early signi- 
fying that he was not to be a sharer with Abraham 
in the promise. 

Supposing Sodom a part of Canaan, the expositor 
never opens his eyes to see how God used the quarrel 
between the herdsmen to accomplish a special purpose. 
It is not exactly the separation of Lot and Abram, 
it is taking Lot from Abram, removing him out 
of the land promised to Abram. Had Abram 
planned such an event he would have lowered him- 
self in our estimation. He never turned Lot off, nor 
dreamed of such a thing. Yet Lot is off. There is a 
complete separation as to place, but in confidence, in 
love, and in an exalted opinion of each for the other, 
there is no evidence of any change whatever, but 
much to show that the two worthies remained iden- 
tified in heart and feeling to the last. 

Yes, God has removed Lot entirely out of the land 
— Lot who seemed indissolubly bound to Abram, his 
equal in goodness, and proving to be altogether his 
superior in aggressive virtue (see Second Peter, sec- 
ond chapter, compared with Gen. 19th chapter, in 
full), revered by him as righteous and so denomina- 
ted by God Himself, is removed out of the land, 
is not to be a partaker with Abram in the promise, 
and this brought about by the strife between the herds- 
men. But the expositors do not see this. They do 
not see that the bed of the Jordan was the eastern 


LOT 


57 


boundary of Canaan. They suppose the land of Sod- 
om was that “better part” of Canaan which Lot, if 
only he had had some manliness, would have left to 
Abram and Sarah, so that there, on the plains of 
Sodom, they might have passed their days, instead of 
lingering among the hills which were enshrined with 
the heavenly promise and already sacred with holy 
altars. 


III. 


REBECCA AND HER SONS. 

I . — Eliezer and Rebecca . 

The character of Eliezer and that of Rebecca, as 
they blend together in the sacred narrative, present a 
most charming picture of genuine confidence in God. 

We see that Eliezer, in his mission to Padanaram, 
believed in God’s providence, and fully committed 
himself to divine direction. A servant of Abraham, 
indeed, but in his mind it was all God’s business; he 
wished no step taken, nor did he care to see anything 
accomplished, except as God should bring it about. 
Eliezer represents the best state of mind a mortal 
can possess in advancing any human enterprise. 
Thus he was brought into contact with Rebecca 
under circumstances which made it certain that she 
was chosen of God to be the person who, as the wife 
of Isaac, was to be identified with him in carrying 
out God’s purpose of a separate family of the seed of 
Abraham. Thus Rebecca had her divine “call,” we 
may say, as well as Abraham his. 

From the minute narrative of events in connection 
with Rebecca, we see clearly that she at once under- 
stood God’s purpose. It was this that prepared her, 
without a misgiving, to say, “ I will go.” A unit in 
58 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


59 


spirit with Eliezer, she joined him in the conviction 
that she must be the appointed handmaid of the Lord, 
to carry out His newly developed plan. The union to 
which she submitted was, indeed, a union with Isaac; 
but it originated in, and was based upon, strong re- 
ligious sentiment — a union with God — union with 
Him in a specific purpose — that purpose being, as we 
should keep in mind, a separate nation. 

As we should expect from this beginning, her life 
was marked at every step by cooperation with God. 

II . — “But Rebecca loved Jacob” Gen. xxv. 28 . 

Expositors pass very severe judgments upon the 
actions of Rebecca; so severe, indeed, as to forbid 
the idea of their ranking her among Scripture wor- 
thies. However this may be, in treating of any per- 
son’s actions and character, it certainly becomes those 
who profess to speak and write under the influence of 
Christian principle to put a favorable construction 
upon actions where the facts in the case will allow 
it. This amenity, as it is the aim of this investiga- 
tion to show, the expositors, in their preparations for 
the Sabbath^schools, have failed to extend to Rebecca 
— the woman, in many respects, preeminent in our 
list of Scripture worthies. 

It is quite common for the expositor, first of all, to 
taunt Rebecca with the partiality it is claimed she 
showed to Jacob; and to make this the occasion of 
quite a homily on the trouble it made in the separate 
family. But the question we have to meet, as we ap- 


60 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


proach the character of Eebecca, is not precisely that 
of partiality. Whilst it cannot be denied that the 
truly impartial parent treats one child different from 
another, according as the circumstances in the case 
may differ, still the question may arise, ought not 
the parent to love one the same as another? Now 
this is the question that confronts us as we approach 
the case of Rebecca and her children. Turning to 
the Scriptures we find that nothing in the original 
has seemed to require the use of the word “ partial ” 
in the translation. Bearing upon this subject, per- 
haps the following passage is as much in point as 
any: “And Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his 
venison; but Rebecca loved Jacob.” Gen. xxv. 28. 
The true inference is that she loved one child more 
than the other. Was it wrong to do so? In the 
light of Scripture no question of partiality concerns 
us. It is this question of love. 

For a time a mother may be supposed to regard 
her children with equal love, and she may continue 
to so regard them through life. Yet there may come 
a time when those children prove so different in char- 
acter — when they take to such different ways — when 
such different relations come to exist respectively be- 
tween them and herself — that, without any shadow of 
wrong on her part, she may find the state of her mind 
and heart towards one quite different from what it is 
towards another. Thus he who would reproach a 
mother because her love all along through life does 
not continue the same to one child as to another sup- 
poses a line of goodness which, we think, God has 
never drawn. 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


61 


III . — Parental love affected by the conduct of 
children. 

The notable passage, “ But Rebecca loved Jacob,” 
declares the state of things between the parents and 
the children at a period when the latter had arrived 
at manhood — when time had developed in them two 
widely different characters, and two diverse courses 
of life. Esau, the skilful hunter, ranged the fields — 
this, his habit of life, presumably, almost always 
abroad — wild, reckless, caring little or naught for the 
company of his mother, but instead, already mingling 
quite freely with the corrupt people around, from 
whom, according to the divine will, the family were 
to keep separate. If reminded that the sanctity of 
his birthright forbade such license, he could speak de- 
risively even of that, as of everything else distinctive 
in the chosen family. In this way, we apprehend, 
was evinced the profanity alluded to by the apostle. 
Thus we have reason to suppose that Esau, by his 
waywardness, had withdrawn himself almost wholly 
from family identification — entirely, perhaps, from 
the sympathy of a godly mother. 

Now a son may, indeed, pursue a course ever so 
wanton, and even vicious, and yet treat his mother 
with such deference and fondness that she may be 
comparatively blind to his faults and love him still. 
But there is no reason to suppose there was any such 
offset to Esau’s irregular life. On the other hand, 
there was, doubtless, a confirmed neglect of his 
mother’s company, and a withering disregard for her 
feelings. Isaac, for aught we know, may have enjoyed 


62 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


his repasts with Esau, may have been amused by 
his sallies of rude and jocular wit, but there is no in- 
dication that Rebecca relished any such pleasure, or 
in any way gave countenance to the wild life of a 
reckless son. And in this is there aught that we 
should construe to her disadvantage? 

“But Rebecca loved Jacob.” No explanation, as 
in the case of Isaac’s preference for Esau, is given in 
the immediate connection; but we refer back to what 
is previously stated as to the difference between the 
two sons, in their character and manner of life, for 
the reason. If the love here spoken of was engen- 
dered by the good character that adhered to Jacob as 
he advanced into manhood, who could reproach her 
for it? Who can say it was wrong? 

We admit that it was extraordinary. It w T as differ- 
ent from what we too often see in mothers of our 
time — we are sorry to say, even in Christian mothers. 
The wild, reckless boy is in some instances the moth- 
er’s idol. He may bring the family to disgrace — be 
a libertine — yet the fond mother will, somehow, even 
remain blind to his vices, and will love him (if love it 
really is) apparently the more. Rebecca was no 
mother of this sort. In our opinion, she loved the 
good boy. We propose here an honest inspection of 
Jacob’ character. 

IV . — Should Jacob's name be interpreted to his 
disadvantage? 

We know well the girl of our period (and the moth- 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


63 


er, too) is apt to commend the wild and reckless, rath- 
er than the plain and steady youth. And certain 
preachers, as if ruled by the same untoward fancy, 
would have us think better of Esau than of Jacob. 
Indeed, they take the earliest occasion to forestall the 
mind, hinting that there are certain bad doings of 
Jacob, some distance ahead, which young students of 
the Bible will be unprepared to know, unless, from 
the very start, all commendation of him is assiduous- 
ly withheld. In fact, the young find every approach 
to an understanding of Jacob’s true character effect- 
ually blockaded. His name, as they learn that it 
means supplanter, is made to answer this malign pur- 
pose. Undertake to say anything in favor of Jacob 
and how readily a Sabbath^school child will confront 
you. “ His very name,” he will tell you, “denotes a 
bad character.” A notion so erroneous as this must 
be offensive, we should think, to every mind enlight- 
ened with gospel truth. 

There are two parties, the elder and the younger. 
At the outset, the elder has prospective sway. But 
he is the wicked party. The state of things is to be 
changed, reversed— reversed by a conflict, a supplant- 
ing conflict— the younger supplanting the elder, 
indeed; but the main thing about it is that the good 
party is supplanting the bad; the righteous supplant- 
ing the wicked. There is moral grandeur in a con- 
flict of this kind. Now the name, Jacob, given to 
one of the children, while commemorating an event 
which attended his birth, was the prophecy of a 
grand work in this line which he was to prosecute 


64 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


and accomplish. When Jacob afterwards received a 
new name, it was no reflection upon the old one. 
The name Israel indicated a mode by which the sup- 
planting, predicted in the name Jacob, was to become 
a success — the prophecy be fulfilled. Jacob, becom- 
ing Israel, was supplanter still; and God was still 
the supplanting God. That is what “God of Jacob” 
means. The name Israel, we say, showed how sup- 
planting became a success — prayer prevailing in the 
case. This understood, the supplanter moved right 
into Canaan, all opposition melting away before him. 
Prevailing by prayer, he became fully established as 
his father’s successor. The term Israel became a 
watchword. Jacob is a type of a gospel church; it is 
a supplanting church. Israel is also a type, because 
it is a prevailing church — prevailing by prayer, just 
as Jacob did. Nobody, unless with the dull compre- 
hension of an infidel, or the revengeful spirit of an 
Esau, should be expected to cast a slur on that 
younger brother on account of his name. 

V . — And Jacob teas a plain man dwelling in tents, 
Gen. xxv. 27. 

The character J acob bore when arrived at manhood 
accords with the name which had been given to him 
in its high commendatory sense. “And Jacob was a 
plain man dwelling in tents.” Plain, in the sense 
commonly attached to the word, indicates a good 
character; for the plain man is very apt to be steady, 
honest, free from guile — a man who may be trusted. 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


65 


But we take advantage of wliat even those critics who 
are severe on Jacob admit, namely, that the word in 
the Hebrew, represented in the translation by our 
word “ plain,” is the same which is applied to Noah 
where it is rendered “perfect”; the same, indeed, 
which is also applied to Job; and what those critics 
also admit is, that, but for certain subsequent acts of 
Jacob, it should undoubtedly be represented by that 
same term in describing him, or at least by some 
term of stronger commendation than the word plain. 
If perfect be too strong, take in its place two words, 
as “ sincere and upright,” making the sense of the 
word here the same as commentators give to it in 
other places. 

Now, if this is just what the Bible says, who are 
we that we should wrest from Jacob the advantage of 
it? Who wants to drop any part of the Word or per- 
vert it? If God calls David a man after His own 
heart, who shall dare expunge that commendation, or 
withhold the natural rendering, because he has learned 
that on a certain occasion David yielded to an 
egregious temptation? As already intimated, we 
propose to cling to the Divine Word and, as we ad- 
vance, note things just as they transpire and are set 
before us by the inspired pen. And, from all that 
scholars tell us, that pen appears to say first, as much 
as it says anything, that Jacob, having arrived at man- 
hood, was one of those rare characters called perfect, 
in the sense of sincere and upright; and that his 
mother loved him. It does not say that she was 
“partial” to him, or that she “idolized” him; but 


66 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


she loved him. Was this wrong? We offer in reply 
only this consideration: If it was not wrong for 
Jacob to possess distinguished goodness it was not 
wrong for him to be loved for that goodness; and 
who had a better right to love him for such a cause 
than his godly mother? 

VI. — The error of expositors in making Rebecca 
chargeable with the future troubles 
of the family. 

And yet right here, with this passage, which only 
bespeaks the godly mother, more firm and exact, it 
must be admitted, in her moral sense than Isaac — 
with this passage, we say, “ But Rebecca loved 
Jacob,” the expositors, able and learned men, com- 
mence their homilies on the great sin of partiality, 
and it is astonishing what a deplorable thing they 
make it — “ the prolific source,” says one, “ of most of 
the troubles which afterwards arose to disquiet the 
family of the patriarch.” The expositor should know, 
we think, that the first and chief disquietude dis- 
tinctly named in the sacred narrative lay, not in the 
mother’s partiality for Jacob, but in Esau’s partiality 
for heathen women, among whom he had taken two 
wives; the immediate annoyance of which, great as it 
was, seemed as nothing compared with the darkness 
it was bringing over the fairest hopes of the separate 
family. Did parental partiality help on, or did it 
stay, the tide of disaster which was thus flowing in? 
If it be claimed that Isaac’s partiality was helping it 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


67 


on, then certainly Rebecca’s “partiality” (really a 
misnomer) counteracted Isaac’s, and thus served to 
keep the family foundations from being swept away. 
It established Jacob as the successor to Isaac — made 
him the future head of the family; this, with no in- 
finitesimal injustice to Esau. 

This was real happiness for Rebecca — Isaac him- 
self would not have it otherwise; and we know it 
was just what God wanted. Where, then, does it ap- 
pear that the “ distresses which embittered the re- 
mainder of their lives” were in consequence of 
parental partiality? Jacob leaves his father and 
mother for Padanaram; this is one of the “dis- 
tresses.” Here the expositors cry out, “ How soon 
the mother reaps the whirlwind!” We are inclined 
to the opinion that Esau, though meditating murder 
just at that time, had a better understanding of the 
trouble in question than the commentators have. At 
any rate, it does not appear that he cast any censure 
upon his mother, or that he so much as thought of 
laying the family troubles to the charge of her partial- 
ity. He had an idea that the cause of trouble lay back 
at the time they were born, when, even on such an 
occasion, Jacob showed himself a “ supplanter.” We 
think he knew well enough where Jacob’s advantage 
lay — in the Divine favor which he had from the start; 
and on account of this, probably it was, that he hated 
Jacob; just as Cain hated Abel, and Saul hated 
David. He could talk of Jacob’s supplanting him, 
and, like the expositors, taunt him with his name; 
but he knew well enough God had used his own 


68 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


acts in the matter of his being supplanted, or that 
he had, in fact, supplanted himself. And when 
he had nobody to blame but himself, he must take 
up the fight against God and resort to the terrible 
solace of meditating the murder of his brother. 

Suppose J acob did leave, and a long sorrow hung 
over his absence; we beg expositors to lay the blame 
where it belongs, upon Esau himself, and not upon 
his mother. She had not been the profane person to 
crush the tender heart of Esau into madness. Did 
ever godly parents have a son arrive at manhood and 
bear the character of Esau, as depicted by the pen of 
Moses, and referred to by the Apostle, and anybody 
be left in doubt as to who caused the family griefs? 
The expositor might as well lay the lamentation of 
the Bethlehem mothers to the charge of the Magi, or 
of Mary herself, as to make Rebecca responsible for 
the griefs in her family. The fact in the case is, 
there was a scapegrace in the family — that fornicator, 
that profane person who despised the distinctive 
character of his family as the chosen of God. And 
his mother had not made him such, as is common in 
our times, by idolizing him. If she had done so, she 
might have been responsible for the trouble he 
brought. But this was precisely not the condition of 
things that existed. 

The expositors mete out their anathemas to the 
innocent; and, if they do not expressly commend the 
guilty, they show that their partiality is in that direc- 
tion. They betray some disorder of conception 
similar to that which once induced a people to cry, 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


69 


“ Barabbas.” They do talk as if, back there before 
Rebecca planned the defeat of Esau, there was a 
chance for the select family to have entered upon a 
career of distinguished happiness, but that they failed 
of it all, and that nothing was left but to lament their 
misery because a wretch like Esau did not come in 
to be their head. They seem to think it would have 
been a blissful state of things from that time on if 
only the Lord, since He was the God of Abraham 
and Isaac, had been the God of Esau likewise. 

VII. — A gratuitous lament because “ Isaac and 
Rebecca did not agree.” A shock- 
ing slander refuted. 

A certain writer bewails the sad life of that ancient 
pair, “ Isaac and Rebecca,” because “ they did not 
agree.” He even tells us “ they were not married 
through and through,” because they clung to differ- 
ent opinions; one holding that the blessing belonged 
to Esau, the other that it should go to Jacob. Sup- 
pose they did disagree on a particular subject, what of 
it? If there was no quarrel, no altercation, no as- 
perity, not a shadow of any such thing, we have only 
to admire them the more. Each appears to have 
duly borne with the other. As far as we can see, 
each left the other free to think and act according to 
his sense of duty; and this, in our view, is the best kind 
of agreement in the world. This, joined with a due 
amount of stern chastity and unyielding continence, 
answers very well for the demands of wedlock. It is 


70 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


enough to say there is no trace or sign of a family jar 
between Isaac and Rebecca. ^ 

But were their opinions so very diverse? The 
readiness with which Isaac acquiesced in his own act, 
when he found he had done just the opposite of what 
he had set out to do and exactly what accorded with 
Rebecca’s sense of right, shows that his disagree- 
ment with her was not very intense. Indeed, in 
view of all the circumstances in the case, one would 
not commit a very serious mistake should he intimate 
that Isaac had been cognizant of Rebecca’s plot; or, 
rather, that it may have been just as much his plot 
as hers — that he himself had been seeking to bless 
Jacob, but wanted it done in such a way as not to 
bring upon himself Esau’s wrath. Let us see what 
construction the facts in the case allow here. Isaac 
loved Esau, or, at least, did bear with him on account 
of the venison. This shade of meaning gives some 
chance for the inference that his general character 
was repulsive to him pretty much as it was to 
Rebecca. There is further evidence of agreement. 
Those two wives of Esau were a grief to his father 
and mother alike. They both saw and deplored the 
waywardness of his course; his utter disregard of 
their feelings on the subject which most concerned 
the family honor; what embarrassment and disgrace 
his conduct was bringing upon them as the separate 
family of God; the defeat, it would seem, of the 
Divine purpose in respect to them. (Gen. xxvi. 85.) 
And how it was to be helped was no doubt to both 
alike a dark problem. 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


71 


From all we see in the sacred narrative, it does not 
appear to have entered the minds of either but that 
Isaac must move right on in pronouncing the bless- 
ing upon Esau. It looks very much as if Esther 
afterwards only copied from Rebecca. Seeking the 
escape of her people from the decree which had been 
instigated by Haman, she does not even hint to 
Ahasuerus any such resort as the reversing of that 
decree. No, the king’s decree is to stand; but Esther 
is left free to devise and carry out any measure in 
her power to save her people. The decree was not 
abrogated, but she made the execution of it the 
means of accomplishing the very opposite of what 
was intended by it, just as the purpose of Isaac went 
right on; but Rebecca rallied her resources, planned 
and enacted an escape, so that purpose in its execu- 
tion accomplished the opposite of what was intended. 
Rebecca may have been fully confident, not only 
that she would succeed, but that if she succeeded 
Isaac would only be glad of it; just as Esther knew 
she had the sympathy of Ahasuerus. Thus there is 
no necessity of accusing that ancient couple of any 
want of harmony; and it is only preposterous to say 
they were “ not married through and through.” Un- 
surpassed by any couple that ever lived, from first to 
last, no lapse from chastity ever befell them, no 
stain whatever adheres to their conjugal life. 

VIII . — Rebecca acting in concert with the divine 
purpose previously revealed to her. 

Rebecca, indeed, was a great exemplar. When the 


72 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


crisis came, and Isaac made ready to confer the fam- 
ily blessing upon Esau, it seemed as if the death 
blow to the purpose of God was ready to fall. Be- 
fore the children were born He had certified to Re- 
becca that the older son should serve the younger. 
What was the state of things when they were men 
grown and their father, it would seem, ready to die? 
Is Rebecca to be frowned on for regarding Esau in 
the same light in which he is presented by the Apos- 
tle? Revolving these things, she no doubt believed 
that God would somehow intervene as He did when 
He snatched Isaac from the altar; and here she ap- 
pears to have left the matter to the last moment. 
But at that moment she acts. There was certainly 
enough, everyone must admit, to move her to action; 
especially when we consider that to her alone God 
had committed a knowledge of His purpose concern- 
ing her children. If it lay in her power to defeat an 
act in its nature subversive of God’s plan, she be- 
lieved in doing it. 

Yet, right here many an expositor and preacher 
takes occasion to ignore the spirit of the gospel and 
assert that she should have been passive and have 
left God in His own way to establish Jacob — have 
“ left God entirely to the execution of His own pur- 
poses,” they say. How strange it is that anyone, as 
he reads, does not see that God did execute His own 
purpose, and took His own way to do it, employing, as 
He did, the energetic service of Rebecca. Strange it 
is that so many, led on, we think, by the expositors, 
find here a most remarkable anomaly — perhaps the 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


73 


only one of the kind among all achievements con- 
nected with God; a case in which God had a work 
which He fondly meant to achieve and have the credit 
of it all to Himself. But, first He knew, a woman 
had slyly taken the work in hand and done it herself; 
and ever since the Almighty has felt a chagrin over it! 

What a fallacy! God makes to one of His children 
the disclosure of His purpose — and shall we complain 
if that child regards such a special disclosure as a 
command to help on in the accomplishment of that 
purpose? To so regard it and act accordingly 
evinces the enlightened Christian — the gospel hero. 
And this was Rebecca’s course. Shall we, who live 
under the gospel dispensation, say it was wrong for 
Rebecca in that crisis to fall upon one of the dis- 
tinctive laws of that dispensation (not so well under- 
stood at that time, it is true), namely, that God uses 
human activity in the accomplishment of His pur- 
poses? Wrong, was it, when she saw a part for her 
to do in the Divine affair at stake, that she turned to 
at once and did it? She thinks, and acts, too, just as 
if all depended on herself — and is not this the way 
God wants every soul of us to work for Him? And 
was this wrong? Who has told us that the man who 
feels his dependence upon God to feed him is ex- 
pected to fold his arms, take no part in achieving a 
livelihood, and in such a way “ leave God to the exe- 
cution of His own purpose ” ? 

The amount of it is, Rebecca had a mind to work, 
just as those descendants of hers had, who rebuilt 
Jerusalem. She did her work at just the time for it 


74 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


to be availing — did it with dispatch — did it thorough- 
ly — and never was success more complete and signal. 
The truth is, we have, in the Bible account of this 
transaction, Just the way God does business — just His 
way of accomplishing a special object. He carries 
on a very large business by inspiring men and wom- 
en to serve Him. When we complain of the way He 
established Jacob as successor of Isaac, we must re- 
member if He had not done it the way He did, He 
probably would not have done it at all. He took His 
own way, anyhow. 

IX. — The great question: Was Rebecca in fault as 
to the measures she resorted to? 

Now comes the great question: God took His 
way — made use of Rebecca; but was she not exceed- 
ingly at fault in the means she employed? Here it 
is that the whole army of expositors cry out against 
her. For, though it w T as right for her to love Jacob, 
and to act in furtherance of the purpose revealed to 
her, how can she receive anything less than the un- 
qualified censure of good people for precipitating her 
son into such an abyss of “deceit, falsehood and 
fraud” ? Here, then, where Rebecca is most cen- 
sured and, we may say, universally condemned, let us 
get as clear a view as possible of the truth in the 
case; for, if it is true that she led her son into sin, 
though the end she sought was ever so worthy, we ask 
for her no justification whatever. We do not seek for 
such conduct a favorable construction. What does 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


75 


concern us and the cause of virtue is this: Whether 
the accusation is just. For Eebecca’s sake, too, we 
ask, did Jacob lie? Did he practice deceit upon his 
father? Did he defraud his brother? If these ques- 
tions admit of a negative answer, Rebecca stands ac- 
quitted of all fault. 

I. — DID JACOB LIE? 

There are two brothers, George and Stephen. An 
army is to be raised. Stephen is drafted. He has a 
family. He arranges with George to take his place. 
George goes as the man drafted — is accepted in the 
service as the man drafted. He reports himself as 
Stephen; can answer “I am Stephen.” It is no lie. 
That is his name, so far as the draft is concerned. 
No such person as George has ever been drafted. It 
is Stephen. Army law accepts George as the substi- 
tute of Stephen. This makes him, in his relation to 
the army, the veritable Stephen. He is Stephen by 
substitution. 

Again, a man holds an office, say President of the 
United States. He is deposed. Another man steps 
forward and can say, “ I am President of the United 
States.” Nobody considers it a lie. It is no lie. 
True, he was never chosen President by the people, 
nor was he born President, but he is so by substitu- 
tion. 

When Jacob said, I am Esau, it was truth, so far 
as the name Esau denoted the firsbborn, and repre- 
sented the rights and privileges of the firsbborn. 

Commentators do not hesitate to say of Esau, as 


76 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


they do of Reuben, who came after him, that he had 
forfeited his birthright by his bad conduct. This 
can mean nothing less than that he had lost his place 
as first-born, that he had made that place vacant, 
that he no longer had any moral right to it. But, 
in addition, he had sold it. Thus he had neither 
moral nor legal right to the place as first-born. Un- 
der this state of things, there could be no first-born 
except by substitution. The sale could avail nothing 
except as the principle of substitution was to prevail. 
And who was there to be substituted, whether in a 
moral or legal point of view, but Jacob? Who but 
he could step forward and, as the blessing of the first- 
born was about to be conferred, rightfully and truth- 
fully say, “I am Esau, thy first-born”? That was 
what the birthright, which he had purchased, meant; 
the right of the first-born, the right to stand in his 
place when the blessing was to be pronounced, and 
say “ I am Esau.” If it did not give him this right, 
it was meaningless, an empty nothing; for the bless- 
ing was to be conferred only on the first-born. The 
purchase embraced also everything Esau had that 
pertained to his identification as Esau. Jacob, 
therefore, had bought Esau’s name, his clothes, his 
very hair. Jacob told no lie. He acted no lie. 
Whatever he said or acted, that he was by substitu- 
tion. 

This is the principle running through all law, 
civil and moral, to which no Christian should be 
blind, for it shines like a golden thread through all 
the gospel texture — the doctrine of substitution. 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


77 


Whatever knowledge or learning we may acquire, 
without a correct understanding here we are very 
ignorant; whatever our position as teachers, we are 
but blind men leading the blind. We should not 
only understand this doctrine ourselves, but teach it 
to our children and see that they also understand it. 
There is no fitter place for teaching it than in the 
Sabbath'school. Has it been taught there? No 
better chance to begin this kind of instruction is 
found in the Bible than that which is offered in the 
case of Jacob. How sorrowfully the expositors, and, 
it is to be feared through them, the Sabbath^schools 
themselves have abused the chance. 

Isaac should have had a quick perception of this 
feature in God’s dealings, since his own blood did not 
flow on Moriah, God there providing a substitute. Re- 
becca, it seems, profited more by his experience than 
he did himself, being altogether more sagacious to see 
how God could effect His purpose and, in spite of 
Esau’s default, maintain the honor of His chosen 
family by a process of substitution. 

Ah, Rebecca, you that were led early to Sarah’s 
tent, had the bereaved Abraham for your father, 
companion and friend. To you, rehearsing the deal- 
ings of God, he lived over the sublime events of the 
past, and thus all those events became incorporated 
with your own life. And in communion with him it 
was that you, too, foresaw the day wonderful for the 
grace displayed in the gospel of substitution through 
Christ Jesus. How is it that Gentiles come in, 
declaring that they are God’s Israel? And is this a 


78 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


lie? How does any poor sinner escape his doom 
except through an ever^ memorable substitute? Cer- 
tainly we should use the case of Jacob to unfold this 
doctrine to the child — not to tell him that Jacob 
lied. 

II. — DID JACOB DECEIVE HIS FATHER? 

Here let it be granted that Isaac supposed he was 
conferring the blessing upon the one to whom it 
rightfully belonged. It turned out that he really 
did this. Jacob, following his mother’s directions, 
had only assisted his father in getting at the right 
person. As stated in a former article, Isaac, we 
believe, became satisfied that the rightful son had 
received the blessing. The just cause of complaint 
on his side was, not that he had been deceived, but 
that he did not himself sooner see a release from the 
family dilemma in a process of substitution. 

And still does any one say, “Isaac was deceived; 
he supposed he was blessing one person when it was 
not that person ” ? Now mark — if just at that time 
perfect sight had been given him what would Isaac 
have seen? He would have seen just this — Jacob 
standing before him the substitute of Esau: the veni- 
son prepared for him, the hair on his wrists and neck, 
the scent of his garments, all declaring only what 
was the fact in the case — just what Jacob asserted, 
“ I am Esau, thy first-born.” All that he said and 
did declared him very Esau by substitution. If there- 
fore we discover in the translation only a strict ad- 
herence to truth and righteousness, we do not think 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


79 


it fair to accuse Jacob of deceiving his father. 

III. — DID JACOB DEFRAUD ESAU? 

This question may be considered as already 
answered; and yet so commonly the expositors 
speak of “ Jacob’s fraud ” as a fact accepted by all 
Christian people, “Jacob’s fraud,” indeed, being 
upon almost everyone’s lips, that we feel it enjoined 
on us to give the question further consideration. In 
the matter of receiving the blessing, he could not 
have defrauded Esau. He thereby received nothing 
that belonged to Esau. Esau had sold his right here 
to Jacob. Besides, if he had not sold it, he had 
forfeited it twice over. He should be considered 
entirely out of question here, as much so as if he 
were dead. There was nothing of Esau’s that Jacob 
ever became possessed of through that blessing. 

But that very purchase, it is maintained even from 
the pulpit, was a swindle. Wherein, we ask? Was 
it not a straight bargain? “No,” we are told; “he 
did not pay for the birthright anything what it was 
worth — it was a prodigious swindle.” Here is a fal- 
lacy. Honesty does not require that a man pay for 
everything that he receives just what it is worth to 
him. If a man gets his bones broken, he never 
thinks of paying the surgeon what it is worth to him 
to have his bones put to rights. You may have a 
tract of marshy land worth nothing to you, and you 
may offer it to me for a mule, and if I take it and 
make a valuable rice field of it, am I a swindler? 

Now, the birthright could be of no value to Esau, 


80 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


for it was only a forfeited birthright that he had. 
Besides, it was not possible for a sensual nature like 
his to value it. Indeed, his profanity lay, presum- 
ably, in the boast that it was worthless. Profanity 
has some reference to speech — speech in regard to 
sacred things. What were the sacred things in 
Esau’s case but the family promises? He was in the 
habit of speaking derisively of these and of the char- 
acter of the family as chosen of God. He cared 
only for present and sensual gratification. He 
wanted no restraint put on his minglings with the 
Canaanites; he saw in the birthright no charm what- 
ever. It only chafed upon his recreant propensities; 
and his speech, repeated, no doubt, over and over, 
must have been to the effect that, as for the birth- 
right, it was nonsense to pay any respect to it — it 
was valueless. Now, when Jacob took this opportunity 
to say, “ Sell me thy brithright,” it was only taking 
him at his word — sell it for this pottage. Esau only 
abided by his habitual profanity in accepting the 
proposal and, with an oath, binding the sale. Jacob 
sought only what Esau despised. But for a legal 
force he might have said, “Give me thy birthright;” 
then, as now, probably it was understood that some- 
thing must be named as a consideration, in order to 
make a legal transfer of interests. It is under all 
these considerations, so manifestly to the contrary, 
that we hear it ringing on every side from pious lips 
how Jacob “defrauded Esau!” 

Thus, by a careful inspection of all the circum- 
stances, we cannot fail to see that Esau, as might well 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


81 


be expected from his habitual profanity, turns out to 
be the fraudulent party. Yes, when he came before 
his father and, with the view of receiving a birthright 
blessing, declared “ I am Esau,” that was a most 
wanton and ignoble attempt at robbery. We have 
long been tired of hearing Jacob derided by educated 
Christians as “unscrupulous and dishonest.” That 
was Esau’s character. Jacob was thoroughly honest. 
Children and all people should understand this. 
Indeed, the sacred narrative is so plain no one would 
think of anything else but for commentators and 
preachers descanting from time to time on “ Jacob’s 
fraud.” 

X . — The pottage bargain interpreted by the way 
it was complied with. 

The pottage transaction admits of a construction 
which presents Jacob in the light of making what 
Esau must have considered a generous offer for his 
birthright interest. We arrive at that construction 
by considering that sometimes a contract is fully un- 
derstood by outside parties only as they see how it is 
fulfilled. A prophecy may be quite dim until the 
fulfilment comes and makes it plain. So it may be 
with a bargain. 

Let us consider, then, how Jacob appears to have 
complied with the terms of his purchase. Surveying 
carefully the line of subsequent events, we fail to dis- 
cover on the part of Jacob, or his mother, the least 
indication that they expected any share of the worldly 


82 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


patrimony to fall to him. Everything proceeds as 
if both he and his mother had no other thought than 
that, as for this world’s goods, Jacob was to shift for 
himself. Nor was there ever any repining over this 
condition of things. From all that worldly substance 
of his father’s he never received anything — he never 
sought anything. When, after that long sojourn in 
Padanaram, he returned, it was not to rescue to him- 
self any part of his father’s goods; but, on the other 
hand, to pour from his own earnings treasure upon 
treasure into the lap of Esau. 

Thus all subsequent events tend to the conclusion 
that the bargain de facto was about thus: Esau to 
take the objects of worldly desire and present gratifi- 
cation, represented by the pottage; Jacob to have the 
promised good, never to be enjoyed by himself, in- 
deed, but by his family in centuries to come, repre- 
sented by the birthright. 

Accordingly, in the history of the Old Testament 
worthies, there are few spectacles of moral grandeur 
presented that surpass the scene when Jacob, turning 
his back upon present good and every hope of a 
worldly inheritance, leaves his parents with only a 
staff in his hand and the promise of God made to his 
fathers hid in his heart. Alone that first night, 
sleeping beneath the open sky, his pillow a stone, he 
received in his sleep the most memorable tokens of 
regard from his complacent Father in heaven. 

But, blind to this Scriptural representation, what 
do our preachers and expositors present to our view? 
The picture of a “ guilty criminal ” “ fleeing from 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


83 


justice ” (as if Esau only meditated a just act!), 
“ shunning human habitations,” “ making his bed as 
an outcast,” the “miserable victim of an accusing 
conscience.” Then they allow — at least, some of 
them — that a sense of sin drove him to God in pen- 
itence, and that on that night he became a converted 
man! A more shallow interpretation of Scripture 
was never made by learned or unlearned, friend or 
foe to the truth. 

It is not an interpretation. It is the worthless 
vagary of a disordered imagination. And it is only 
under the influence of such an imagination that ex- 
positors go on intimating at every conceivable oppor- 
tunity, throughout the entire life of Jacob, how he 
must have been perpetually reminded of his “ fraud 
upon Esau.” 

It is a significant fact, that does not augur very 
well for the morals of the expositors themselves, that, 
on coming to the feuds and factions of the patriar- 
chal family, they do not so much as advert to a plural- 
ity of wives and subwives as the source of them — no, 
indeed! — but, as if that was all right enough, they re- 
fer those special troubles away back to that signal 
“ treachery upon Esau ”! 

There is another fact that must be noticed in this 
connection, and incontrovertible it is. If Jacob did 
sin in the matter of the birthright, and if God did 
hold him answerable for any fault therein, let no one 
presume to find, in all the history given of him with 
such precision by inspiration, the least trace of evi- 
dence that he was ever penitent for it, or that God, 


84 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


directly or indirectly, sought from him any confes- 
sion. Look for Jacob’s repentance for his treatment 
of Esau, or God’s forgiveness? You might as well 
look for the same in the case of Joseph, in view of 
his distinguished continence; or in the case of Moses, 
because he chose affliction with the people of God. 

XI . — The fidelity of Rebecca to the Abrahamic 
family. 

We started out with the plea that a favorable con- 
struction should be put upon one’s actions where the 
facts in the case will allow it. In the search wfflether 
the application of this rule to Rebecca would turn to 
her advantage, we find that the facts in her case, 
justly considered, not only permit, but compel a 
favorable interpretation; and, beyond this, such an 
interpretation, indeed, as should exalt her in the 
estimation of all mankind. 

Have expositors forgotten the vision that glided on 
their view as they first saw Rebecca at the well? 
Can they forget the lustrous traits of her character 
as disclosed by the sacred pen when it first introduced 
her to their acquaintance? — a creature, born seem- 
ingly to strong religious sentiment, quick to recog- 
nize the Divine hand and follow where it leads, be 
the consequences what they may — chosen of God to 
be identified with Him in His grand scheme of a 
separate nation. How firm her trust, how fixed her 
purpose, how prompt her action; nothing by halves, 
no wavering, no misgiving. Her decision made, the 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


85 


execution was sur e and immediate. That very morn- 
ing she starts out upon the new line of life which she 
knows God has marked out for her. Such we see her 
as she was led by Isaac into his mother Sarah’s tent. 

We consider that her subsequent life, though be- 
set with trials, was a grand fulfilment of what her 
character, as at first presented, so beautifully augured. 

Uniform and symmetrical from beginning to end, 
never once blemished by any particle of that family 
license which was so prevalent in that age, and which 
invaded even the tents of Abraham, without a lapse 
into error that any Bible reader should bemoan, what 
she was at the start she continued to be to the 
last — hers a life of complete identification with God 
in all His purposes as made known to her. Unsur- 
passed in this respect, her record will remain to 
adorn the annals of all time — the illustrious successor 
of Sarah in the line of female worthies; though a 
woman, the peer of Abraham himself. 

XII . — Jacob in Haran. The “ twenty-years ” 
fallacy . 

We notice that in Sunday-school literature the 
idea is conveyed that Jacob remained in Haran only 
twenty years. Nor is this altogether strange, for the 
same idea prevails in the most noted commentaries. 
But an erroneous view like this, though seemingly 
trifling, throws the Scripture narrative into confusion. 

Whether the time was twenty years, or twice that 
number, depends very much upon the interpretation 


86 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


we give to Gen. xxxi. 41: “Thus have I been 
twenty years in thy house.” Here, what precedes 
evidently shows what twenty years are meant; name- 
ly, the twenty years he has been speaking of, intro- 
duced back in verse 38. “ This twenty years have I 

been with thee,” having charge of Laban’s stock and 
caring for it, with some share of the increase stipu- 
lated as pay; carrying on a kind of partnership, out- 
side, probably, of the care of his own flocks and herds, 
and in this way becoming rich. Having fully set 
forth his self=denying care for Laban’s interests, he 
closes, verse 41, “Thus have I been for twenty years 
in thy house.” This really ends the paragraph, 
though in the middle of a verse. The record con- 
tinues, “I served thee fourteen years for thy two 
daughters.” Now it cannot be that these fourteen 
years are a part of the twenty he had been giving ac- 
count of. He was not making a business of caring 
for Laban’s interests and sharing the increase for pay. 
There, too, were the six years he serves, taking pay 
in cattle. Now, we must bear in mind these fourteen 
years and the six make the full twenty years, the 
whole period of time which commentators claim for 
Jacob to have been in Haran. It is here obvious 
that if Jacob was in Haran only twenty years, the 
cattle which he received in pay for the last six years 
must have constituted the whole stock he had when 
he left Haran. But it stands to reason that he need- 
ed the full additional twenty years to acquire the 
amount of stock with which he moved out of Haran, 
which must have been quite immense, judging from 


REBECCA AND HER SONS 


87 


the droves sent forward to Esau. We here intro- 
duce the catalogue: 220 goats, 220 sheep, 30 cam- 
els with their colts, 50 cows and 10 bulls, 20 she 
asses and 10 foals. Now it would be extravagant to 
suppose that the pay for the six years’ service amount- 
ed to even what was here sent forward to Esau, which 
no one has ever imagined to have been more than a 
tenth of the whole.* 

This one view of the subject requires the intrepre- 
tation we have given — that Jacob, in his address to 
Laban, is calling to mind two different twenties in 
time; one, the period during which he acquired his 
wealth, the other, during which he had served, four- 
teen years for Rachal and Leah, and six for cattle. 

Another advantage in the twice twenty years theory 
lies in this, that it saves us from supposing Dinah 
only an infant and Joseph unborn when Jacob un- 
dertook his return to Canaan. For under the twenty* 
year theory, if we suppose Dinah a year old when the 
removal commenced, it gives tq Leah only twelve 
years after her nuptials, a part of this time being 
barren, to bear seven children, none of them twins. 
And Dinah being the last, we do not favor the inter- 
pretation that obliges us to think she was a babe, or 
only two or three years old, at most, when she 
commenced her residence in Canaan and became the 
object of fatal attraction to Sheshem. 


* If it is not right here that Jacob fulfilled his vow made at 
Bethel, we have no knowledge of its ever being fulfilled at ali. 
On the supposition it was here fulfilled, we know precisely the 
amount of substance with which Jacob moved out of Haran. It 
was just ten times what he sent forward to Esau. 


88 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


It is owing to the twenty-year theory that Sunday* 
school expositors startle the young by telling them 
that Jacob was seventy-seven years old when he first 
saw Rachel at the well. All admit that he was nine- 
ty-seven when he left Haran. If he, then, was 
only twenty years in Haran, he was, as they tell us, 
seventy-seven when he first arrived there. But, adopt- 
ing the forty=year theory, we can boldly affirm he was 
only fifty-seven when, with staff in hand, he set out 
for Haran and, having arrived there, first saw Rachel 
at the well. 


IV. 

THE RETURN OF JACOB FROM MESOPOTAMIA. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

If we have found deep meaning in the early years 
of Jacob when his life was blended, so to speak, with 
that of his mother; if our sympathy is touched as we 
see him turning his back upon the endearments of 
home and his father’s material wealth, making his 
way on foot and alone, cheered only by the testimony 
of God’s favor; if we have found ourselves enthusi- 
astically following out the vicissitudes of his fortune 
in building up a family and acquiring independence 
during forty years in Haran; is it quite wonderful if, 
after all this, we shall find the period which embra- 
ces his return from Haran to Canaan still more inter- 
esting and instructive? 

It is right here that God may be said to especially 
reveal Himself in Jacob. It is in this journey with 
his family and substance out of Haran into Canaan — 
although a brief period of time, only twenty days per- 
haps, or thirty at most — that we see the character of 
Jacob in its true light and find ourselves most im- 
pressed with his high moral and intellectual worth. 
Here we discover Kachel and Leah also rising in our 
89 


90 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


estimation and showing themselves fully allied with 
the Abrahamic family. 

I . — The command to return connected with the 
promise at Bethel. 

It was when Jacob’s second twenty years in Haran 
drew to a close that this period of his removal back 
to Canaan commenced. Though separated from 
Bethel by forty years in time, it has a close connec- 
tion with the memorable scene in the life of J acob 
which made that place remarkable. How wonderful 
that God should speak to a mortal as he did to Jacob, 
in a vision in his sleep, as he lay there pillowed upon 
stones! “ I am the Lord God of Abraham, thy father, 
and the God of Isaac; the land whereon thou liest, 
to thee will I give it, and to thy seed: and thy seed 
shall be as the dust of the earth; and thou shalt 
spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the 
north, and to the south : and in thee and in thy seed 
shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And 
behold, I am with thee and will keep thee in all 
places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again 
into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have 
done that which I have spoken to thee of.” 

II. — Jacob in council with Rachel and Leah. 

And now behold this man after forty years of 
strange experiences in Haran. The injustice of 
Laban and the jealousy of his sons becoming past 


JACOB 


91 


endurance, Jacob, in the midst of his perplexity, hears 
again the complacent voice of God: “ Return unto 
the land of thy fathers and to thy kindred, and I will 
be with thee.” This voice comes to him when he is 
away in the field — he cannot leave his flock. But 
what is the first thing he does? Only a person of the 
most exquisite sense as to what constitutes genuine 
nobility of character in the family head would be apt 
to give the right answer. How beautifully the record 
continues: “ And Jacob sent and called Rachel and 
Leah to the field unto his flocks.” We here see that 
they are his partners, his counselors in the most im- 
portant decisions; he must have them in full agree- 
ment with him; they must be identified with him; 
indeed this movement must be their affair as well as 
his. In most of the states of our republic there is a 
law to the effect that a man cannot deed away his 
home without his wife’s signature. That law finds its 
commendation right here in Jacob. He receives 
God’s direction, but he makes compliance with it 
Rachel’s and Leah’s affair as well as his own. He 
gives them the opportunity of showing their identifi- 
cation with him in this all-important matter of obedi- 
ence to God, whereby they are to abandon their 
father and native country. 

It is highly interesting to contemplate the confer- 
ence held there in the field. How careful Jacob is 
that Rachel and Leah have a precise understanding 
of the situation! “I see your father’s countenance, 
that it is not towards me as before.” This was a 
strong point. How could he live with a man, join 


92 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


him in social and business relations, yet all the while 
conscious of his jealousy and ill will — a man that 
was troubled because his own daughters and their 
husband were prosperous, — prosperous most certainly 
by God’s doing? “As ye know,” he says, “ I have served 
your father with all my power. And now the angel 
of the Lord has appeared unto me, saying, ‘ I have 
seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God 
of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where 
thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out 
of this land and return unto the land of thy kindred.’ ” 
Here the women enter more fully into the case, and 
show more glaringly their father’s injustice than 
Jacob does, as if conscious that the present estrange- 
ment of their father forbids the expectation of any 
generous consideration for them in the future. And 
as for the past, though having submitted to the de- 
praved custom of their time, they show a full compre- 
hension of its turpitude and assert the natural right 
of a daughter to participate in the earnings of her 
affianced husband, instead of their being grasped by 
her father. Notice, whilst Jacob has referred to 
Laban’s unfair deal with him in recent years, Rachel 
and Leah go back of all that to his early cruelty to 
them. Instead of having received any dowry “ have 
we not been counted as strangers, for he hath sold us 
and hath devoured all our money,” which, as well 
paraphrased by an able commentator, is as much as 
to say: “Instead of dealing with us as daughters, be- 
stowing on us honorable dowries, he bargained us 
away like slaves, and applied the proceeds to his own 


JACOB 


93 


use.” And they end with perhaps as wise a counsel 
as ever fell from human lips: “Whatsoever God hath 
said unto thee do it.” We count Solomon wise, but, 
of all he ever wrote, what so comprehensive in wisdom 
as the conclusion these women arrived at in their ad- 
vice to Jacob? 

III . — How the journey commences. Arrival in 
Mount Gilead in ten days , explained. 

“Then Jacob rose up and set his sons and his 
wives upon camels; and he carried away all his cattle 
and all his goods.” (Gen. xxxi. 17.) Here, in the 
first place, we may learn something valuable in ex- 
egesis. The inspired pen is wonderful in brevity, 
and we must not deceive ourselves into an inconsist- 
ency by allowing too little time to intervene between 
two events which, in the record, follow close upon 
each other. Where it says, “Then Jacob rose up and 
set his sons and his wives upon camels,” this must 
have been some time after the deliberation with the 
two women; for, in only ten days after he started the 
women and children on the camels, they, with all his 
enormous droves of cattle, some young and tender* 
footed, had arrived at Gilead, over three hundred 
miles from Haran. Now, the cattle, with the young 
and tender=footed, could not possibly have gotten 
over this distance in so few days. We are left to 
suppose that Jacob, immediately after that council 
held with the women, commenced secretly dispatch- 
ing droves, one after another, by different routes. 


94 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


But Jacob himself, with the family proper, lingered 
behind and set out only in time to overtake, in ten 
days, the servants with their droves at Gilead. If 
the distance was three hundred and sixty miles, it 
was traveling thirty-six miles a day. We may think 
it fast traveling, but it was easily done on camels. Of 
course, Laban’s troop traveled faster and overtook 
Jacob by making fifty miles a day. 

IV. — Overtaken by Laban. Trouble ended by a 
covenant of peace. J acob met by angels 
as he moves on. Mahanaim. 

Having arrived in Mount Gilead, Jacob and his 
family must have felt a happy relief from their appre- 
hension of trouble in the way of being molested by 
Laban, when their feeling of safety was suddenly 
checked by the appearance of a party in hot pursuit 
of them — Laban’s adherents, himself . at the head of 
them; the fact of his having followed them so far 
and perseveringly making certain his purpose to cap- 
ture the droves of cattle, the men servants and women 
servants, and take them back to Haran; possibly 
Jacob himself, and his family also, to be forced back 
into a hopeless servitude. And what made the diffi- 
culties of the occasion more trying was Laban’s bring- 
ing Jacob to account for the stolen images; this mat- 
ter was made more desperate when J acob, in answer to 
the charge, says: “With whomsoever the images are 
found let him not live.” Most fortunately, owing to 
Rachel’s adroitness, the images were not found; 


JACOB 


95 


whereupon Jacob takes occasion to set before Laban 
the hardship he has endured in caring for his inter- 
ests: “Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed 
me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed 
from mine eyes.” And what had he received from 
Laban in turn, but to be treated as an enemy? He 
ended by telling Laban how, “ except the Lord had 
interposed, he would have been sent away empty.” 
Here note the fact: The case between the two was so 
manifestly as Jacob stated that Laban did not pre- 
sume to deny a word he said, or utter aught in palli- 
ation. 

It is supposed by many that, in the matter of the 
rods, Jacob played a trick on Laban. Not so. The 
stipulation for Jacob to have all the speckled was 
virtually an arrangement for him to have nothing, un- 
less God’s blessing upon his ingenuity could secure 
a streaked increase. Such increase resulted, but the 
truth of the matter was precisely as Jacob expressed 
to Kachel and Leah. “ God took away the cattle of 
your father and gave them to me.” 

After the bold and faithful statement of the case 
by Jacob, Laban seems to have known no other way 
of answering but by proposing a covenant to which 
Jacob conceded by saying, “Gather stones”: and oi 
the stones they made a heap to be witness between 
them, neither party to pass by it to molest the other. 
In conclusion, Jacob offered sacrifices and made a 
feast at which both parties tarried for most of the 
night. And early in the morning Laban kissed his 
30ns and his daughters, and departed and returned 


96 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


unto his place. And how grateful to Rachel and 
Leah must have been this relief from trouble, and, 
indeed, this final release from jealous brothers and an 
estranged father, their consolation being a complete 
identity with Jacob, joining him and firmly standing 
with him on the highest moral platform ever reared: 
“ Whatsoever God hath said unto thee, do it.” 

Here we can hardly refrain from tears of sympathy 
for the family as we think how happy they were; for, 
as they went on, the angels of God met them, and 
Jacob said, “This is God’s host.” He no doubt 
recognized them as the same he had seen at Bethel, 
when, forty years before, God had graciously prom- 
ised his return. Oh, what a time of gladness! It is 
not recorded that anything was said by the angelic 
host, but their presence alone was a renewal of the 
promise at Bethel that God would bring him again 
to that land. The place thus noted by the presence 
of angels Jacob called Mahanaim — memorable, in- 
deed! for probably the family of Jacob was never 
happier than at this time. 

V. — About to pass through Seir, Jacob sends 
messengers to Esau. His alarm at the 
report brought back. 

How truly was the life of Jacob only a series of 
strange vicissitudes! — but the darkest hour was just 
before him. Esau, in the enlargement of his posses- 
sions, was at this time dwelling in Seir, and through 
a portion of this territory it was necessary, it seems, 


JACOB 


97 


for Jacob to pass. Skilled in human nature and 
with his usual sense of propriety, Jacob sends mes- 
sengers before him to Esau. The main thing was to 
let his brother know how, by remaining in Haran 
as he had, he was now returning with immense flocks 
and herds, men servants and women servants. This 
was a very sensible and clear-sighted message. We 
learn from it what was the precise ground of Esau’s 
hate. He thought the blessing which had been con- 
ferred upon Jacob would leave him without the 
paternal wealth. It was for this reason he hated 
Jacob and meditated on taking his life. With this 
understanding of the trouble, Jacob had the discre- 
tion to send messengers to Esau to let him know of 
the abundance with which he was returning from 
Haran. Certainly upon knowing this he would dis- 
miss all thought of his returning to claim what he 
had no need of — any part of his father’s estate. No, 
Jacob could not think of anything so base as that 
Esau, while he was enjoying his father’s wealth, the 
whole of it, and himself none of it, would take in 
hand to wrest from him what he had acquired in his 
long absence. Thus we can only imagine his con- 
sternation when the messengers returned, saying: 
“ We came to thy brother Esau, and moreover he 
cometh to meet thee with four hundred men with 
him.” 

And the record continues: “Then Jacob was great- 
ly afraid.” If ever mortal had good reason to be 
afraid it was Jacob at this time, for plainly Esau, after 
forty years, had not outgrown that murderous hate 


98 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


which had fired his brutal heart with the resolve to 
kill him. He was utterly defenseless against any 
hostile attack; and, to human view, there was no 
escape from falling, himself, his family, and all his 
substance, into fiendish hands. And here, where the 
patriarchal family should receive the sympathy of all 
generous minds, it seems only in line with the cruel- 
ty of Esau that any Christian commentatator should 
intimate that Jacob, under these circumstances, was 
“greatly afraid” because he was here “brought to 
face an old wrong that he had done Esau.’ 

VI . — Preparing for the worst, whilst his reliance 
is God’s promise , he prays. 

“Jacob was greatly afraid.” He was left, we 
would say, with no resort. We can conceive how 
his first thought may have been for his family to 
start a return on camels towards Haran. This would 
be to overtake Laban and run the hazard of making 
him their protector, whilst the whole wealth of cattle 
and servants would fall into the hands of Esau. But 
no such course as this could Jacob reconcile with the 
recent direction of God for him to return to Canaan. 
And here his sagacious mind fell upon a plan 
by which, though it would strip him of the half of his 
substance, would leave a chance of saving his family 
and the part remaining. He divided the people, 
flocks and herds, and the camels into two bands, 
these moving forward, it may be presumed, one con- 


JACOB 


99 


siderably in advance of the other so that, the one 
being attacked, the other might escape. 

But this was by no means the whole of Jacob’s 
resort. He prays — and what a prayer it was! It 
should put to shame the commentators who so read- 
ily attribute his fears to a sense of any wrong he had 
done to Esau. He acknowledges God’s great good- 
ness to him, for he was not worthy of the least of all 
his mercies. To the God who had said, “Return 
unto thy country and thy kindred,” he cries, “De- 
liver me, I pray Thee, from the hand of my brother, 
from the hand of Esau; for I fear him lest he will 
come and smite me and the mother with the chil- 
dren.” We see here that Jacob had no thought of 
deliverance by backing out of his journey. We see 
here Jacob’s consciousness of the extremity to which 
Esau’s barbarity might lead — not only to his own 
death, but to the extermination of his offspring. His 
reliance was upon God to save him in the emergency 
to which his obedience to God had brought him, not 
an old wrong to Esau. For anyone to discover, in 
this prayer, any evidence whatever of acknowledg- 
ment to God of a wrong done to Esau, must weaken 
his claim to respect as an interpreter of the Word. 
The way the prayer closes shows how far Jacob is 
from basing his expectation of help upon any con- 
fession of wrong to Esau. “For thou saidst, I will 
surely do thee good,” having reference, no doubt, to 
the words, “ I will keep thee in all places whither 
thou goest” (Gen, xxxii. 12.) 


100 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


VII. — He plans another mode of effort, combat- 
ting evil with good. The presents viewed 
in connection with his vow. 

Thus Jacob made the wisest provision for the 
worst. But, whilst they lodged there that night, he 
thinks out another scheme of effort to be put in exe- 
cution at the same time that he forms his attendants 
and their charge into two bands. He is going to try 
the effect of combatting evil with good — the very 
thing enjoined by Christ centuries afterwards. No 
doubt it was as they were forming into the two bands 
that he took of that which came to hand a present 
for Esau. Nor was this proceeding strange. At the 
time God said at Bethel, “I will be with thee,” 
Jacob himself had made a vow in these words: “ If 
God be with me so that I come again to my father’s 
house in peace, then shall the Lord be my God, . . . 
and of all that Thou shalt give me, I will surely give 
the tenth unto Thee.” Now he had come to the very 
confines of the territory which afterwards fell to his 
posterity. And here, as he had called upon God to 
fulfil His promise, how opportune it was to see how 
God wanted the tenth right there, to use in melting 
the heart of Esau. The offering is prepared, and 
without knowing what the result would be these two 
plans are acted on: The presents to move in the ad- 
vance; if they should not appease Esau, as he 
would meet them, then the supposition would be 
that, in capturing the first band, some time would 
be occupied in disposing of it, or that it would be 


JACOB 


101 


taken as the whole of Jacob’s property, so that the 
other band, with the family proper, would escape, at 
least, immediate destruction. 

We see how Jacob made requisition on all the 
wisdom he had, and all the effort of which he was 
capable, and we must not forget how this was neces- 
sary in order to make his prayer of reliance upon 
God for deliverance consistant. God answers prayer 
by giving success to our labor in attainment of 
what we pray for. We have noticed that, in this 
case of Jacob, the circumstances were such that 
seemingly nothing could be done. And yet how 
much, how very much, Jacob did, with the greatest 
deliberation, yet in the briefest time! 

VIII. — Victory antedated by a contest at Peniel 
when Jacob , alone with God, obtained 
His pledge of safety, 

But we have not told it all. It is one of the sub- 
limest spectacles of human warfare, the opposing par- 
ties getting into position: — on the one hand, the two 
bands with all their live stock moving on, one consid- 
erably in advance of the other, these preceded by the 
droves on droves of presents; — to meet, on the other 
hand, an advancing enemy, the unrelenting Esau 
with his four hundred men prepared to capture Jacob 
and take possession of all he had. As the last thing 
in the scene before us, when the droves and bands 
had been started forward, it is said of Jacob, “He 
rose up that night and took his two wives and his 


102 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


two women servants and his eleven sons, and passed 
over the ford Jabbok. And he took them and sent 
them over the brook and sent over that he had” (all 
that he had was passed over). 

It was pushing forward in the matter of returning to 
Canaan, as God had directed, though seemingly in 
the face of inevitable ruin. But he does not do this 
without the rally of all his wisdom and the exercise 
of every effort; as if an escape was possible by human 
means. And having done this, what is said of him? 
“And Jacob was left alone: and there wrestled a man 
with him until the breaking of day.” Here, really, 
the battle was fought, the victory won, Esau con- 
quered. Here Jacob acquired his new name. Here 
he stands as representative of what was to come in 
the church militant. Where was success to lie? In 
taking God at His word; holding God to His pledge. 
We see a man meeting the greatest obstacles, utter 
ruin staring him in the face, and yet never hesitat- 
ing one moment to follow God’s direction; then 
holding God to His promise for success. Thus 
Jacob prevailed and received the new name of Israel. 
But all this is spoiled when the commentator speaks 
of his wrestling with God for the forgiveness of his 
sin against Esau. There is nothing in the text or its 
connection that sanctions, or even hints at such a 
thought. The struggle that night at Peniel was 
plainly a struggle with God — holding Him to His 
promise, claiming His intervention in the terrible 
emergency, because he had come into it by doing 
just what God had directed; Rachel and Leah stand- 


JACOB 


103 


ing with Him on that same moral platform, “ doing 
whatsoever God has said unto thee.” It seems that 
God is never more pleased with mortals than when 
they hold Him to His word. It is right here that 
He tries men, tries their faith by bringing them into 
circumstances where, seemingly, God has deserted 
them. 

A Sunday=school expositor has spoken of this 
occasion at Peniel as the time of Jacob’s conversion. 
“ There he was made a new man,” — but by no means 
in the sense supposed. He had prevailed with God, 
obtained the blessing sought, making a great change; 
not as to any trouble of conscience, but a change 
from a state of terror, from threatening calamity to one 
of perfect relief under a feeling of complete safety. 

IX . — The battle between the brothers described. 

Jacob as a preexistent gospel victor 
reenters the Promised Land. 

The same revengeful Esau with his four hundred 
men was just upon him, but every particle of fear was 
gone, strengthened and armed, as he was, in the 
consciousness of God’s standing by his side so that 
Esau could not harm him. In this condition, how 
serenely he moves on, every now and then bowing 
himself to the ground, worshiping God. When, lo! 
Esau is in sight. He comes, his four hundred men 
with him. Behold the battle, the most remarkable 
ever fought! “And Esau ran to meet him, and fell 
on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept. And 


104 : 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


he looked around and saw the women and the chil- 
dren, and said, who are these with thee? And Jacob 
said, the children which God hath graciously given 
thy servant. Then the handmaidens came near and 
bowed themselves. And Leah also, with her chil- 
dren; came near and bowed themselves; and after 
came Joseph near and Rachel and they bowed them- 
selves. And he said what meanest thou by all the 
droves that I met? And Jacob said those are to find 
grace in the sight of my Lord. And Esau said I 
have enough, my brother, keep that thou hast unto 
thyself.” What a wonder here! Esau is the new 
man, conquered, converted, won by love! Yes, 
Jacob is prevailer indeed, and yet supplanter still; 
supplanting hate with love; a preexistent gospel 
worker on the high plane of Christian heroism. 

It is here seen that to speak of the presents as due 
to Esau and intended to heal a past wrong, spoils one 
of the best records of a much higher virtue than 
making amends. When we think of the emphasis 
our Lord placed upon his direction of returning good 
for evil, we ought not to forget that there was an il- 
lustrious example of that virtue far back in the past, 
and its trial a brilliant success, when Jacob, in the 
imminent peril of his family and substance, made the 
revengeful Esau his friend. 

Thus we are here led to contemplate one of the 
grandest of moral truths — how that the glory of 
victory lies, not in the overthrow or destruction of a 
most dangerous enemy, but in the grandest of all ex- 
ploits, seizing the time of special conflict and making 


JACOB 


105 


it the opportunity of transforming an implacable 
enemy into a lifelong friend. 

Behold the conclusion of the patriarch’s journey! 
He passes on secure and happy in his family and 
possessions. He makes his return into Caanan, the 
fulfilment of God’s promise shining in a halo of 
glory around him. And what of Esau and his four 
hundred men? Under the magic force of that one 
prevailing prayer they become a wall of defense 
to protect the younger brother in the primogeniture 
rights which had fallen to him when he stood before 
his father and said, as he was authorized to say by 
the purchase he had made, “ I am Esau, thy first-born.” 


V. 


JOSEPH AND THE MORALIZERS. 

I do not know that any expositor has intimated 
that Cain was probably noble and high-minded, 
though at times impetuous; or that anyone has ever 
insinuated that Abel very possibly made himself un- 
necessarily offensive to his less fortunate brother in 
that matter of an appropriate sacrifice. But certain 
it is, this would not be much more inconsistent than 
the reflections which have been virtually cast upon 
the doings of Joseph and his father, by way of ac- 
counting for the cruelty of his brothers. A noted 
interpreter of the Bible tells of the father’s mistake 
in making for the lad that variegated coat; for this, 
he says, instigated hatred, and he moralizes in these 
words: “ It is extremely dangerous, indeed actually 
criminal, for parents to show partiality to any of their 
children.” And what next? “Joseph incurred the 
hatred of his brothers by carrying to his father a re- 
port of their evil doings.” And the moralizing con- 
tinues: “This tale-bearing is to be severely con- 
demned.” Then there were those dreams. “ Why 
tell such dreams to his brothers? ” “ How lacking 

in modesty, how injudicious it was!” 

Now these references to what Jacob did and what Jo- 
seph had done are only what we would expect from 
106 


JOSEPH 


107 


an advocate employed to clear the guilty brothers, 
an advocate who sees the necessity of hunting up some 
provocation or other where absolutely there is none, 
It is no place here for a commentator to moralize on 
the sin of favoritism. The Scripture is, “ Now Israel 
loved Joseph more than all his children because he 
was the son of his old age ” — born at last, too, of 
Rachel, his real wife. But she had died, and, unlike 
those older brothers, the tender Joseph had no mother. 
Now the truth is, those older brothers, had they pos- 
sessed only a spark of virtue, would have rejoiced to 
see what happiness had come to their father in Jo- 
seph. But, taken as a whole, they were without vir- 
tue. Under the baneful influence of Simeon and 
Levi they had become apparently consolidated in 
wickedness — witness their savage treachery and re- 
morseless vengeance upon the Shechemites. The 
father could have no pleasure in those children, every 
thought of them filling his breast with terror, morti- 
fication and shame. There was left to him no en- 
couragement for hope, save in Joseph. And what a 
mercy it was that Joseph, born into the worst contact 
since those older brothers, his natural companions 
were already inuring themselves to vice and conspir- 
ing in courses of cruelty, what a mercy that he was not 
beguiled by their arts! How wonderful that he gave 
no countenance to the wrongs they perpetrated! 
What a child he was! How firm he stood for virtue 
and truth! And when he saw wrong-doing he regard- 
ed it as his business to make it known to his father. 
Right here is seen the distinctive traits of character 
which gave renown to his after life. He appears to 


108 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


have been the only one the father could trust. And 
was it wrong for the father to love Joseph? There 
was no concealment in these matters. Joseph was 
above concealing his fidelity to his father, nor was it 
anything to be concealed that, under the circum- 
stances, the father loved Joseph more than the rest 
of his sons. So far as the coat denoted the father’s 
love and testified to J oseph’s fidelity, it should be re- 
garded as a needed reproof to the older brothers, a 
standing testimony, applauding virtue and condemn- 
ing vice, a sermon stereotyped and ever ready to ad- 
monish the recreant brothers of their sins. Why, 
then, should an eminent Hebrew scholar make this 
an occasion to say, “ Telling evil reports, unless in the 
interest of friendship, is to be severely condemned ” 
— a poor maxim, thus worded. If he means, “ unless 
for the family good, or the good of society, or the 
protection of an innocent party,” we should call it 
correct. And on what other ground than this, we 
ask, had the innocent Joseph acted? What exposi- 
tor has any reason to doubt that it was for the good 
of the family and the purity of shepherd life around 
them, that Joseph made known to his father what 
the older sons were doing? And further, another 
general truth is here in place. For one to be a wit- 
ness of criminal wrong and not expose it, makes him 
virtually a participator in the wrong. It is at least 
siding with the guilty. Thus, to talk about the “ sin 
of favoritism ” in the matter of that coat made for 
Joseph, or of his report of vile doings, is to put virtue 
and vice, patriotism and treason, on the same moral 
footing. 


JOSEPH 


109 


But the expositors complain more of Joseph’s 
tongue than of his coat. They see, indeed, no harm 
in his dreams; but that tongue, which has been hard 
on evil deeds of others, must tell also what dreams 
he has had. Here we do not ask for Joseph any 
such extenuation as the expositor chooses to make, 
that, “ however lacking in modesty and discretion, it 
was the work of a child, innocent and with no malice. ” 
The course pursued by Joseph was consistent with a 
sound mind in the full understanding of moral law 
and the knowledge of God. Such was the nature of 
the dreams that they were obliged to be regarded as 
a communication from heaven. Such their nature 
that they could be understood in no other light than 
a revelation of what was to follow in the family of J a- 
cob. The revelation concerned the whole family. As 
the revelation was made to Joseph, it followed as 
plainly as if commanded, that it was for him to 
make known the revelation to the family. In this 
way alone could they be expected to fall in with 
God’s purpose, cease from their hatred to Joseph and 
enjoy God’s favor. Now, what remains is for the 
commentator to see, not only that the act of Joseph 
in making known his dreams to the family was thor- 
oughly discreet and righteous, but that his so doing 
was a grand success. It did break up enmity of 
these brothers against Joseph, it did make them hon- 
est and truthful, it did make them a happy family, 
loving Joseph and submitting to his rule — all this 
just twenty^two years after he related to them his 
dreams. 


VI. 


MOSES— WHY MOSES AND AARON COULD NOT 
ENTER THE PROMISED LAND. 

In the investigation of this question we find there 
are two trials: one for the part Moses took in a trans- 
action at Kadesh^barnea, when God was ready to 
blot out the nation — this in the second year after 
the crossing of the Red Sea. In this trial only 
Moses for the most part seems to be involved. In 
the second trial the ground of offense, or what seems 
to be such, lies in a transaction which occurred 
thirty-seven years after the other, at Kadesh Meribah, 
when a younger generation were giving vent to their 
rage against their distinguished leaders. In this 
trial both Moses and Aaron are alike involved. 

I. — The case of Moses at Kadesh'barnea. 

“ Also the Lord was angry with me for your sakes, 
saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither” (Deut. i. 37). 

As for this first affair at Kadesh-barnea, we may 
well consider the construction Moses himself puts 
upon it in his celebrated review of God’s dealings 
with the people under his hand. In this review, 
when he comes to that rebellion which followed the 
evil report of the spies, he shows how God was so 
no 


MOSES 


111 


incensed that, though hearing Moses’ prayer not to 
blot out the nation, He swore, saying: “Not one of 
these men of this evil generation shall see that good 
land, which I swear to give unto your fathers, save 
Caleb; to him will I give the land he hath trodden 
upon, and to his children.” (Deut. i. 35.) Notice, 
this decree shut Moses out. Hence Moses adds: 
“ The Lord was angry with me also for your sakes, 
saying: ‘Thou, also, shall not go in thither. But 
Joshua the sun of Nun, he shall go in thither.’ ” 

Now, let us go back to the time here alluded to, 
for it becomes us to know well the particulars of 
Moses’ exclusion from entrance to the promised land. 
We can afford to believe what Moses, in his re- 
view, says, for Moses was one honest man. We 
intend to hold fast to those words: “The Lord 
was angry with me also for your sakes.” This state- 
ment is made again and again. Let us know more 
about this. The narrative which we need to consider 
is given in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of 
Numbers. It was when, upon the evil report of the 
spies, the murmurings of the people against Moses 
and Aaron rose to madness, and they were plotting, 
saying one to another, “ Let us make a captain, and 
return to Egypt,” and they were ready to stone Caleb 
and Joshua for opposing them, and the Lord Him- 
self, as if brought to a limit in forbearance, said unto 
Moses: “ How long will this people despise Me? And 
how long will they not believe Me (note, it is not 
Moses that is charged with unbelief, but the people) 
for all the signs which I have wrought among them? 


112 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit 
them; and will make of thee a nation greater and 
mightier than they.” Here the character of Moses 
rose to the height of its grandeur. It seems as if 
God was allowing Moses to outdo Him in His own 
distinctive greatness. Truly, the world has known 
nothing outside of the Nazarene to surpass the re- 
sponse of Moses on this occasion. He pleads with 
God not to do this. Bad as the people are, it will 
not be for the Divine honor to let His promise con- 
cerning them fail. He reminds God of His forbear- 
ance at Horeb, and of His exceeding glory when He 
there revealed Himself as a God of mercy. “ And 
now, I beseech Thee, let the power of my Lord be 
great, according to Thy word (in Horeb), saying, 
the Lord is long suffering, and of great mercy, 
forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no 
means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of 
the fathers upon the children, unto the third and 
fourth generation. Pardon, I beseech Thee, the 
iniquity of this people, according unto the greatness 
of Thy mercy, and as Thou hast forgiven this people 
from Egypt, even until now.” And the Lord said: 
“ I have pardoned according to thy word.” (Note 
what David says: “ Therefore, He said that He would 
destroy them, had not Moses, His chosen, stood 
before Him in the breach to turn away His wrath, 
lest He should destroy them.” Ps. cvi. 23.) He does 
not utterly wipe out the nation; but, that all the 
world may be conscious of His abhorrence of in- 
iquity, what did God say? “Your carcasses shall 


MOSES 


113 


fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered 
of you, according to your whole number, from twenty 
years old and upward, which have murmured against 
Me, surely ye shall not come into the land which I 
sware to make you dwell in, save Caleb the son of 
Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.” 

How are we to understand this? For, if only 
Caleb and Joshua are to enter the promised land, 
then, evidently, Moses and Aaron are included with 
those who are not to enter. It seems as if right here 
we come to the force of Moses’ choice — “ Choosing 
affliction with the people of God.” Moses had thus 
far, all along from Egypt, suffered with the people 
the result of their rebellion and unbelief. In this 
plea for God to spare the nation he wished it to be 
understood that he was still willing to suffer, if only 
God would not blot them out. Thus Moses’ choice 
had a terrible significance, when we find it involved 
the sharing with them in the consequences of their 
unbelief. (Deut. i. 32.) 

This we consider Moses’ own interpretation of his 
being included with those who suffered the penalty 
of unbelief, in the words: “ Also, the Lord was angry 
with me for your sakes, saying: thou also shalt not go 
in thither.” (Deut. i. 37, 38.) Where the Divine 
pen says He would have destroyed them had not 
Moses, His chosen, stood before Him in the breach. 
(Ps. cvi. 23.) Moses virtually took his place with 
the people to suffer with them, and consequently, 
when God said not one who was over twenty when 
they crossed the Red Sea shall enter the land, save 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


in 

Caleb and Joshua, Moses was in the number who 
were to suffer for the unbelief of the people. 

Moses had persevered in his divine commission till 
he saw the formidable kings outside of Canaan sub- 
dued: and the time was nigh for Israel to pass over 
Jordan and reduce Canaan itself. Here his mind re- 
verts to the early cleaving of his heart unto oppressed 
Israel and how his spirit was fired for them as oft as 
he heard of the promised land. He remembers well 
his resolve: how he chose affliction with the people 
of God rather than to reign over Egypt. It had been 
affliction sure enough — the hardest of all to bear, 
the continual murmurings of the people he was de- 
livering from bondage — and now, as these troubles 
were drawing to their end, the hope of four centuries 
about to be realized, how could he endure the thought 
that, after all, he was not to participate with Israel 
in the fruition of their hopes. Thus it was that here, 
as if God in His infinite complacency and power 
could remove an impossibility, he pleads for the 
Divine indulgence in allowing him to just set foot, 
as it were, in the promised land. He himself relates 
the situation with that distinguished pathos which 
has stirred the hearts of all Bible readers from 
generation to generation: “And I besought the 
Lord at that time, saying, O Lord God, thou hast 
begun to show Thy servant Thy greatness and Thy 
strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or in 
earth, that can do according to Thy works and accord- 
ing to Thy mighty acts? Let me go over, I pray 
Thee, and see the good land that is beyond Jordan, that 
goodly mountain and Lebanon. But the Lord was 


MOSES 


115 


wroth with me for your sakes, and hearkened not unto 
me. And the Lord said unto me, let it suffice thee: 
speak no more unto Me of this matter. Get thee up 
into the top of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes west- 
ward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, 
and behold with thine eyes: for thou shalt not go 
over this Jordan. But charge Joshua, and encourage 
him, strengthen him, for he shall go over before 
this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land 
which thou shalt see.” 

There is not the least chance here to suppose that 
Moses was conscious of any wrong that he had 
done, or that he suspected God was alluding to 
anything of this sort in His denial. The reason 
given by Moses puts the wrong entirely on the side 
of the people. The Psalmist fully interprets this 
passage for us: “Therefore God said that He would 
destroy them had not Moses His chosen stood before 
Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath lest He 
should destroy them.” We are here brought to the 
certainty — the Lord could not hear Moses when he 
asked to go over, because he had stood in the breach. 

Here the mind reverts to the time when the spies 
brought back an evil report, and, at the pointed remon- 
strance of Caleb and Joshua, the people were ready to 
stone them — a time when God’s forbearance was ex- 
hausted and He said unto Moses: “ I will smite the 
people with the pestilence and disinherit them; and 
I will make of thee a greater nation and mightier 
than they.” Here is where Moses puts himself in 
the breach in his prayer for the pardon of the 
people. 


116 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


We know the condition on which God consented to 
the prayer. Evidently Moses was willing to submit 
to any personal trial if God would not give up His 
chosen people. God consented to grant the request; 
but it was in this way. They shall stay in the wilder- 
ness till every one of them who was over the age of 
twenty at the crossing of the sea, shall die — every one 
save Caleb and Joshua. When only they two are left, 
then Israel shall pass over. 

Thus there is no chance for any other conclusion 
than that the question of Moses’ not entering the 
promised Canaan was decided at Kadesh'barnea 
thirty^seven years before he smote the rock at Meribah. 

II . — The case at Kadesh Meribah; in which 
both Moses and Aaron are involved. 

Now the case we have considered at Kadesh'barnea, 
where Moses alone is represented as standing in the 
breach and thereby incurring the doom of never en- 
tering into Canaan, is quite distinct from another 
which occurred tliirty^seven years after at Kadesh 
Meribah; in which both Moses and Aaron fall again 
(at least Moses) under the same penalty; for the 
record of the transgression closes with these words: 
“ Because ye believed not on Me to sanctify Me in the 
eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not 
bring this assembly into the land which I have given 
to them.” (Num. xx. 12.) After this, as the death of 
Aaron drew near, we have the record, “ And the Lord 
spake unto Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, saying, 


MOSES 


117 


Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, for he shall 
not enter into the land which I have given unto the 
children of Israel, because ye rebelled against My 
word at the waters of Meribah.” (Num. xx. 24.) See 
when Moses also was about to die. (Deut. xxxii. 51.) 

The time had come when all included under the 
decree at Kadesh^barnea had died — all, it seems, but 
Moses and Aaron (taking it as granted that Aaron 
was included as well as Moses). 

But the younger generation, that had been spared 
through Moses’ standing in the breach, were becom- 
ing more bitter and provoking in their complaints 
than their fathers had been. Especially were they 
violent against Aaron. And this, in spite of the 
more signal judgments which they had witnessed, as 
when the earth opened and swallowed up the families 
of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram before the eyes of all 
Israel. And when, thereupon, because all the con- 
gregation murmured against Moses and against Aaron, 
saying ye have killed the people of the Lord, why 
should they forget how, on that occasion, wrath went 
forth from the Lord and the plague set in; which 
was stayed only by Aaron who, at the direction of 
Moses, stood with his censer of incense between the 
dead and living — stayed, however, not till fourteen 
thousand and seven hundred had died. Then, as if 
to subdue every remaining feeling of opposition to 
Aaron, and bring every mind into a settled conviction 
as to his divine calling, there was the affair of the 
twelve rods, Aaron’s alone budding, blossoming, and 
yielding its almonds. It seems as if the very demons 


118 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


would blush to see Israel from this time laying the 
evils of their condition to the charge of Moses and 
Aaron, their distinguished benefactors. 

Here note what the Lord said unto Moses: “Pat 
back the rod of Aaron before the testimony to be 
kept for a token,” as if to keep in abeyance the spirit 
of rebellion. But it had no such effect. How soon, 
coming into the desert of Zin, they were casting 
their cruel reproaches upon Moses and Aaron be- 
cause there was no water! Behold the record: 
“And they gathered themselves together against 
Moses and against Aaron, and the people chode with 
Moses and said, would God we had died when our 
brethren died.” Now, here was the time, if ever, for 
Moses to lose patience and, as the Psalmist says, to 
speak “ unadvisedly with his lips.” But how could 
the Psalmist refer to this time? For what does the 
record say? “And Moses and Aaron went out from 
the assembly unto the door of the tent of meeting 
(with God) and fell upon their faces and the glory 
of the Lord appeared unto them.” (Num. xx. 6.) 
There is no indication here that either Moses or 
Aaron expressed any resentment; or, indeed, had any 
feeling of resentment. They were too sorrowful for 
the emotion of anger or for words of reproof. They 
did hasten to the presence of God. As on the 
occasion, thirty=seven years before, when God was 
ready to blot out the nation, here again Moses and 
Aaron are on their faces in prayer. And was prayer 
ever more prevailing? Did ever mercy shine forth 
so unexpectedly from frowning skies? It was to be 


MOSES 


119 


the last wonder of that memorable rod — the last 
wonder, a miracle of mercy. 

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take 
the rod and assemble the congregation, thou and 
Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock be- 
fore their eyes that it give forth its water: and thou 
shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so 
thou shalt give the congregation and their cattle 
drink. And Moses took the rod from before the 
Lord as He commanded him.” (Num. xx. 7,8,9.) 
And here, when Moses and Aaron had gathered the 
people at the rock, there had been time for delibera- 
tion: and if Moses, as introductory to his speaking to 
the rock, made any address to the people, we should 
suppose it would have been with his customary wis- 
dom. We think the address was in harmony with 
what we know of the occasion. He addresses them 
in their true character, indeed, and under the name 
which the Lord Himself had given them. (Num. xvii. 
10. ) Indeed, Aaron’s rod that budded was to be kept 
as a reminder to the “children of rebels” There- 
fore he says, “ Hear now, ye children of rebels, [let the 
state of the case be fairly understood] for you [who 
have kept up one steady course of rebellion against 
God] shall we [Moses and Aaron whom you perpetu- 
ally taunt with being the cause of all your miseries] 
bring forth water out of this rock?” No apostle — 
nor even John the Baptist — ever made a more 
pointed and timely appeal to the consciences of 
men. 

It should here be noticed that the words of the 


120 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


address were intended to be heard. It calls on the 
people to hear what is to be said. But the Psalmist 
seems to refer to some instance when Moses, like 
Hannah afterwards, spake in his heart, when only 
his lips moved, but his voice was not heard. Ac- 
cordingly the phraseology, “ unadvisedly with his 
lips,” cannot well be said to refer to the address 
which Moses made on the occasion of smiting the 
rock. 

WAS HIS ARM IN FAULT, OR HIS ROD? 

Perhaps our younger brethren in the ministry are 
not so fully aware as they should be that Biblical 
interpretations, even those that have been of longest 
and most general acceptance, should receive their 
careful investigation. For instance, Moses saw the 
promised land, but was not permitted to enter it. 
This is a Scriptural fact. But how long, and how 
commonly the reason assigned for it by interpreters, 
has been that he disobeyed God when he smote the 
rock instead of speaking to it. This interpretation 
has been so generally disseminated that we can hardly 
allude to the circumstance how Moses only saw, but 
never entered the land of promise, without the ready 
response: “He smote the rock instead of speaking 
to it.” As for ourself, we are far from regarding 
the conduct of Moses here, as some preachers do “a 
shameful proceeding, a daringly wicked transaction.” 
They compare this occasion at Kadesh Meribah with 
one similar to it many years before at Horeb. There, 
they tell us, God did command Moses to strike, but 


MOSES 


121 


here, they say, God commanded Moses to speak to 
the rock. This is not altogether a fair statement. 
In each case the rod was more conspicuous than 
Moses or Aaron. In each case the command is 
“ take the rod,” “ and thy rod wherewith thou 
smotest the river, take in thy hand.” (Ex. xvii. 5.) 
The use of the rod to smite is plainly implied. This 
at Horeb. How at Meribah? “And the Lord 
spake unto Moses, saying: take the rod, and assem- 
ble the congregation, thou and Aar6n thy brother, 
and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes.” In 
this speaking, there was to be something the people 
could see. As on the other occasion, the rod was to 
speak, and how could it speak, except in Moses’ 
hand it smote the rock? Confirmation of this view 
is found in the transaction away back at the river in 
Egypt. Note the command there: “Take thy rod 
and stretch out thine hand over the waters of Egypt, 
that they may become blood.” Nothing said here 
in the command about “smiting the waters.” But 
how did he obey the command? Precisely as after- 
wards at Horeb and at Meribah. “ And he lifted up 
the rod and smote the waters in the sight of Pharaoh, 
and in the sight of all his servants, and all the 
waters that were in the river turned to blood.” (Ex. 
vii. 20.) We might just as well accuse Moses of diso- 
bedience here, as at Meribah, and say he smote the 
waters instead of merely “ stretching his hand over 
them,” as he was commanded. And in another case 
(Ex. x. 12) the command was, “ Stretch out thy hand 
over the land of Egypt for the locusts.” In the com- 


122 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


mand nothing is said about the rod. But did not 
Moses know, in all these cases, that God was to be seen 
and known in the rod? How did he obey in this case? 
“ And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of 
Egypt, and when it was morning, the east wind 
brought the locusts.” Shall we say here that Moses 
lifted up the rod because he did not believe the 
locusts would come if he lifted up the hand merely, 
as God commanded? And, shall we add that unbe- 
lief was the foundation of this “shameful pro- 
ceeding ” ? 

Nor should there be any fault attached to Moses 
for smiting the rock twice. It should only be regarded 
as denoting earnestness, a determination on thorough 
work; hence, the statement: “ And water came forth 
abundantly, and the congregation drank and their 
cattle.” There does not appear to us any more 
wrong in the two strokes than in the abundance of 
water that followed. 

From these precedents we see no chance for the 
charge of disobedience in the use of the rod at Meri- 
bah, any more than there had been in its use on any 
preceding occasion. But without these precedents, 
Moses stands acquitted of the charge from the very 
nature of the case. If God commanded Moses what 
to do in order to supply the people with water, and 
then, instead of obeying God, he did something else 
that was especially abhorrent to God, and yet the wa- 
ter came all the same, and in the greatest abundance, 
would not this be putting a premium on disobedi- 
ence by God Himself? Thus no one has the right to 


MOSES 


123 


believe for a moment that a miracle was wrought, ex- 
cept by doing as God commanded. 

III . — Some Things Restated . 

We have noticed that the complaint against Moses 
and Aaron is for some one thing that they both share 
alike in doing. This, we think, is argument against its 
being either the address at the rock, or the smiting 
of the rock; for these seem to be acts of Moses’ own 
volition. Again, of only Moses it is said that he “ spake 
unadvisedly with his lips.” We know not that Aaron 
was a partner in this. Now, what does the Word 
say of both? When all the people gathered them- 
selves together against Moses and against Aaron, 
what does it say Moses and Aaron together did? 
Hear the answer. “ And Moses and Aaron went 
from the presence of the assembly unto the door of 
the tent of meeting — (meeting with God)— and they 
fell upon their faces; and the glory of the Lord ap- 
peared unto them.” Surely there is nothing in this 
that has the color of unbelief or rebellion. And what 
else? “The Lord spake unto Moses saying, Take 
the rod and gather thou the assembly together, thou 
and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock 
before their eyes and it shall give forth his water, and 
thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock, 
so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts 
drink. And Moses took the rod from before the 
Lord as He commanded him.” It was a complete 
success. “ He smote the rock twice, and the water 


124 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


came out abundantly and the congregation drank and 
their beasts.” 

Now where it says “ Moses took the rod from be- 
fore the Lord as He commanded him,” we think the 
just inference is that he followed the direction 
throughout and to Divine acceptance. Viewed under 
a just and strict criticism, we see only (as set forth 
in our main article) the exalted character of those 
two men as the servants of God. Nothing therefore 
is more surprising than what is appended to the ac- 
count of the Meribah transaction. “ And the Lord 
spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believe Me 
not ” (What can this mean?) “ to sanctify Me in the 
eyes of the children of Israel therefore ye shall not 
bring this congregation into the land which I have 
given them.” How the scales are turned! In the 
whole transaction from the time Moses and Aaron 
fell on their faces at the door of the Lord’s tent and 
the glory of the Lord appeared unto them, not one 
hint of the Lord at any wrong in the people whose 
unbelief had become aggravating to the last degree, 
whose want of confidence in Moses and Aaron God 
had been visiting with miraculous reproofs, how hap- 
pens it that, just at this time, when we should sup- 
pose the people would be ceasing their complaints 
against Moses and Aaron, the Lord should commence 
His complaint, and charge upon them the guilt of 
unbelief (the very sin for which the people had been 
so reprehensible) and, by way of punishment, say, 
“Ye shall not bring this congregation into the land 
which I have given them” ? And, after this, when it is 


MOSES 


125 


said Aaron must die, the cause is referred back to this 
occasion, “because ye rebelled against My Word at the 
waters of Meribah,” and likewise, when Moses must 
die, the same cause is repeated, “ because ye trespassed 
against Me among the children of Israel at the waters 
of strife, because ye sanctified Me not in the midst of 
the children of Israel.” There is no question as to 
the stipulation at Kadesh^barnea. Moses, in being 
denied entrance to the promised land, was to suffer 
for the unbelief of the people just as if it were his 
own unbelief. Now, when the children of the rebels 
that had been spared by the forty days’ pleading of 
Moses at Kadesh^barnea are found, thirty-seven years 
after — when, too, God had taken so much pains to 
exalt Moses and Aaron before their eyes — gathering 
themselves together against these servants of God, 
how does the record here continue? “And Moses 
and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly 
unto the door of the tent for meeting with God and 
they fell upon their faces and the glory of the Lord 
appeared unto them.” Here it is not Moses alone in 
supplication, but both Moses and Aaron. And how 
can we avoid the conclusion that the heavenly re- 
sponse was like that at Kadesh^barnea, “ I have par- 
doned according to your word.” In this case, as in 
the other, if the people are cleared, their guilt (may 
we not suppose?) must adhere to an innocent party. 
Moses and Aaron both must die for they are not to 
enter the land because of their unbelief and rebellion 
at the waters of strife. Now was it really their unbe- 
lief and rebellion, or the people’s? Notice how af- 


126 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


ter this it seemed to be an effort of the Lord to keep 
this in mind — that, while the people enter in and pos- 
sess the land, Moses and Aaron must die. (May we 
not say in their place?) It seems as if He must keep 
this in mind: that only as they die as the substitute, 
the innocent for the guilty, can the unbelieving and 
rebellious Israel lay claim upon the promise — pass 
over Jordan, enter and possess the land of Canaan. 

IN CONCLUSION. 

Are we not authorized in saying Israel was to un- 
derstand that they owed their entrance into Canaan 
to the voluntary offering which Moses and Aaron 
made of their lives on their behalf at the waters of 
Meribah? Are we not authorized to compare the lan- 
guage of Moses as the time drew nigh for him to die, 
“ Let me go over,” to the utterance of Jesus, as He 
was about to suffer “ If it be possible let this cup 
pass from me,” and say, in neither case was there 
any absolute ruing of the substitutional engage- 
ment? 


VII. 

RAHAB: GOD’S HEROINE. 


Sabbath'school expositions are sometimes un- 
satisfactory. And tlie case is quite remarkable if, 
where one errs, the rest follow. An example of this 
we find in the treatment of the fall of Jericho. With 
the Bible account of this event, the rescue of Rahab 
is so interwoven that it becomes unnatural and even 
diffcult. to discourse on the one without special refer- 
ence to the other. But, as I read the exposition in a 
prominent weekly and saw no allusion to Rahab, I 
turned to another weekly, and then another, on up to 
seven. In no one of them was there any allusion 
whatever to Rahab. Do those who arrange the lessons 
for the year issue orders as to how the lessons shall be 
treated? And have all these expositors received their 
orders not to mention Rahab’s name? It is just as 
unnatural to treat of the capture of Jericho and say 
nothing about Rahab as to discourse on the over- 
throw of Sodom and never speak of Lot. The escape 
of Rahab was altogether more wonderful, more illus- 
trative of God’s distinguishing grace, more instruct- 
ive as to the use He makes of human actions in the 
accomplishment of His purposes, more so by far than 
the rescue of Lot. 

What we know of the spyin'g out, capture and 
127 


128 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


destruction of Jericho is embraced in two chapters, 
the second and sixth of Joshua; but more than half 
of the whole pertains really to Rahab’s escape. Sur- 
veying the accounts together we cannot fail to see 
that God was just as intent on saving Rahab as He 
was in fulfilling His promise to Israel. He would 
no more have allowed her to perish than His whole 
project for Israel to fail. There is nothing in 
Scripture more interesting and instructive than the 
way this affair was carried on. 

The long-expected hour had come. Israel was 
ready to cross over Jordan and enter the promised 
land. Under the highest encouragement of the Lord 
Joshua assumes command. “ Be not afraid neither be 
thou dismayed, for the Lord thy God is with thee 
whithersoever thou goest.” Across the river stands 
Jericho, that doomed city. Here consider Joshua’s 
first movement. He sends out two men to spy out 
Jericho, saying: “ Go view the land even Jericho.” 
Under ordinary circumstances this would be con- 
sidered an act of military discretion which would 
determine future movements: but whatever discover- 
ies could be made, we do not conceive how they could 
lead to any change of measures for the conquest in 
view, when God had said, “ Arise go over this Jordan, 
thou and all this people, unto the land which I 
do give to them, even to the Children of Israel.” It 
was just a notion of Joshua’s to send the spies. He 
did not know what he was about, but G od knew. He 
could take that notion and use it for the accomplish- 
ment of a purpose that Joshua knew nothing of. 


RAHAB 


129 


Nor did any one in all Israel know. Whilst Joshua 
thought he was spying out Jericho, God’s eye was 
upon that solitary inhabitant who, though a native 
of that city and brought up in the midst of its gross 
idolatry and shameless morals, yet, when she heard 
of the wonders wrought in Israel, believed in Israel’s 
God, and clave in her heart unto His people. Such 
was Rahab, the harlot. 

That notion of J oshua — let us follow it to the end. 

These two spies work their way into Jericho; but 
instead of spying out Jericho, they have more to do 
in the way of keeping Jericho from spying out them. 
Night comes on, and where are they? In doomed 
Jericho, indeed, but at the house of that very child that 
God is spying out. Is not this an interesting case — 
how they, who are of one heart, do somehow find one 
another out? How they do get together — the spies 
and Rahab — God’s three? 

Rahab is all for Israel. Though at the imminent 
risk of her life, she is going to do what she can. 
She does not hesitate to save those men of Israel. 
She has them well hid in the flax on the roof of her 
house. But soon the officers of the king are at her 
door, with a demand such as we should suppose 
would have thrown any woman, however self-pos- 
sessed, entirely off her poise. It is a direct message 
from the king to Rahab. “Bring forth the men 
that are come to thee, which are entered into thine 
house; for they be come to search out all the country.” 
With no particle of perturbation, what a straightfor- 
ward reply she makes: “ There came men unto me, 


130 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


but I wist not whence they were: and it came to pass 
about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was 
dark, that the men went out. Whither the men went 
I wot not,” 

This reply saved the spies and, perhaps, herself 
from immediate execution. And yet, right here, 
where faith was doing its chief work for the present 
safety of the parties, the expositors think Rahab ut- 
tered a falsehood; and they labor at length to show 
in what sense the Apostle’s commendation of her 
conduct is to be understood. This is all labor for 
nothing. It is just as easy to admit that her reply 
was all true as to maintain that any part of it was a 
lie. Because it was so complete in its nature to mis- 
lead, we have no reason to doubt that it leads us to 
the facts in the case, not away from them. We be- 
lieve it was a statement of facts, not a fabrication of 
falsehood, that hurried the officers away from her door. 

Those two Israelites, it may be presumed, had seen 
Rahab before night-fall. In spite of their effort to 
shun observation, they may have ventured where they 
unexpectedly found a woman’s penetrating eye upon 
them; but instead of inspiring a sense of danger it 
may have encouraged the strangers to some word of 
inquiry; and there may have been something in the 
tone and manner of the reply which, as the night 
was coming on, was found drawing the strangers to 
Rahab’s house. And once there and having arranged 
for their lodging, is it strange that they had the 
delicacy to withdraw and so be at her house and en- 
danger it as little as possible? They went out, as 


RAHAB 


131 


Rahab says, and they returned when it was later, and, 
therefore, safe to be there. Does not the sequel prove 
that they returned a little too soon? We see, then, 
there is no good reason for even an intimation that 
Rahab, in her reply to the message from the king, said 
anything that was not strictly true. “There came 
men unto me, but I wist not whence they were ” — 
this the state of the case when the men first called 
there. Then she tells how, about the time of the 
shutting of the gate, the men went out — whither they 
went she knew not. What expositor has any shadow 
of right to say it was not so? 

The reply was wonderful; but the wonder lies not 
in her ability to invent on the spur of the moment a 
number of lies all harmonizing to her purpose, but in 
her instantaneous selection of what must be revealed 
and what not revealed. She says the men came, she 
knew not whence; but she does not say they arranged 
for lodging there. She says they went away and tells 
the time, but she does not say they came back again. 
She did not tell all she knew — nor does a strict mor- 
ality require this of any man or woman. As for the 
matter of speech, the fairest accomplishment even 
of the Christian character is a just conception as to 
what of all one knows he is to tell and what keep to 
himself. No one can doubt that Rahab had this in- 
valuable gift. In that emergency she was competent 
to the task of stating instantly such facts as would 
save the spies and suppressing all others. No one 
has any right or occasion to accuse her of falsehood. 

The officers are gone. Under this relief the spies 


132 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


arise from concealment, but still remain on the roof. 
And what of Kahab? Her anxiety is only the more 
intense. The officers will return from their fruitless 
search, and she needs no one to tell her what peril 
will await when the rumor circulates that the spies 
are still in the city. What an earnest soul! No half- 
way friend is Kahab. All this interest for the stran- 
gers — how suddenly sprung up! And yet all that she 
knows of them is simply that they are Israelites! No 
thought of sleep — no rest — something must be done. 
What a creature faith is for work, for contrivance! 
There is a cord at hand; Kahab lays hold on that. It 
suggests to her an escape for the Israelites. She goes 
up to the men on the roof, for they were not yet laid 
down. There the two men of Israel and the woman, 
a heathen, hold a council together about as remark- 
able as the stars ever looked down upon. She dis- 
closes to them her reason for believing in Israel’s 
God. She tells them what terror has fallen upon 
the people. Indeed, all that the spies afterwards had 
to report to Joshua seems to have been communicated 
to them in this interview which they had with Kahab 
that night on the roof of her house. “ I know,” she 
says in conclusion, “the Lord hath given you the 
land, and Jericho must perish.” As her house was 
on the city wall she proposed to let them down with 
the cord from the window on the outside of the wall; 
so that they can return and soon be safe again in Israel. 
“ But what,” she cries, “ oh, what of my father’s house? 
Who shall deliver our lives from death ? ” They certify 
to her, “ When the Lord hath given us the land we will 


RAHAB 


133 


deal kindly and truly with thee.” She has full faith in 
the pledge. She let them down through the window. 
And then, as if a vision of what soon befell Jericho 
was before them, they foresee what uncertainty must 
attend the making of her family an exception in the 
universal massacre, and, whilst she from the window 
is advising them how to prosecute their escape, they 
in turn give her the explicit charge: “Bind this 
line of scarlet in the window, this very line which 
thou hast let us down by, and thou shalt bring thy 
father and thy mother and thy brethren and all thy 
father’s household home unto thee, and our life for 
yours if any one of you is harmed.” “And she said 
according to your words so be it. And she sent them 
away and they departed. And she bound the scarlet 
line in the window. ” 

From this scene we pass to the hour of Jericho’s 
destruction. On the seventh day Israel compassed 
the city seven times; and it came to pass at the 
seventh time, when Joshua had declared the doom of 
the city — no spoils taken — no lives spared; he adds, 
“ Only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that 
are with her in her house! ” Now this was the same 
as to say spare the house where the scarlet line is 
bound in the window. Forthwith the trumpets 
sounded and the people shouted with a great shout 
and the wall of the city fell down flat! But it did 
not fall where stood the house of Rahab with the 
scarlet line bound in the window. And when the 
slaughter was going on in every street and house^ 
there was only a solemn quietude in the abode of 


134 : 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


Bahab, for all its inmates needed was to see the scar- 
let line bound in the window to be assured that noth- 
ing could harm them. 

As the slaughter ends two men stand at Rahab’s 
door. Who are they? Let Bahab come and see. 
They are the very men she had let down from her 
window on the outside of the wall. “ And the young 
men that were spies went in and brought out Bahab 
and her father and her mother and brethren and all 
that she had.” And then and not till then was all 
Jericho burned up. 

Thus Jericho was destroyed and Bahab saved. 
These two parts are conjoined by God. The exposi- 
tors have divorced the one from the other. 

Such the outcome of J oshua’s notion when he sent 
two men to spy secretly; saying, “ Go view the land 
even Jericho.” No miracle in the case, but was there 
ever a deliverance more signal and complete? Behold 
all Israel arrayed on the banks of J ordan ready to cross 
over; but the ark never moved forward into the divid- 
ing waters until God had His line of scarlet bound in 
the window of Bahab, the harlot. 

We have spoken of Bahab as compared with Lot, 
but in reality she ranks side by side with Abraham 
himself. Abraham was taken from an idolatrous race 
to be the father of a separate people. But just as 
that people was merging into a great nation, God 
rescued this woman, and by incorporating her with 
the new nation makes Canaan equal with Israel in 
giving to the world that line of royalty which com- 
menced with David, whose father Jesse was the great 
grandson of Bahab. 


VIII. 

THE FOUR WOMEN. 

In connection with the genealogy as given by 
Matthew, Dr. Broadns, as we expected, alludes to 
the circumstance that the names of four women are 
introduced. But the comment he makes is quite 
unexpected. Having repeated their names, he says, 
“ of whom three were polluted by shameful wicked- 
ness, and the fourth was by birth a heathen.” Now, 
that their names are mentioned is a circumstance 
which, we think, calls for no criticism, whether 
favorable or otherwise, upon their moral character. 
The name of Tamar is mentioned because it is sug- 
gestive of the staff and signet and bracelets which 
themselves, we may say, belonged to the genealogy 
in question. These declared Tamar the virtual wife 
of Judah. Without them the lineage of Christ could 
be traced to Tamar only; and there it would have 
been left to the supposition of having commenced in 
illegitimacy. It was a piece of wisdom in which the 
whole world was concerned — the securing of those 
pledges by which alone the lineage of the Savior 
could afterwards be traced — and lawfully traced — 
back to Abraham. But for that discretion there 
could have been no such statement in the genealogy 
as “Judah begat Pharez,” or those other memorable 
135 


136 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


words, “Jesus Christ the son of Abraham.” The 
lineage of both our Lord and David goes back to 
Tamar, where the staff and signet and bracelets shine 
forth to authorize the linking of her offspring with 
the Abrahamic family. Thus the name of Tamar is 
the rock in the long distance which the pathway of 
lineage cannot avoid. 

And the next woman is Rahab. Why is she 
named? Dr. Broadus does not tell us that Canaan, 
though conquered by Israel, yet, through Rahab, 
was equal with Israel in giving to the world that line 
of royalty which, commencing with David, was hal- 
lowed with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 
Israel wanted a king; Saul, the fulbblooded Israelite, 
was a failure. God set up another in his place — the 
son of Jesse, who was just as much a Canaanite as an 
Israelite, his grandfather, Obed, being the grandson 
of this very Rahab. 

And who is the next woman? Let us keep in mind 
the list — Tamar, Rahab, then Ruth. Who was Ruth? 
Dr. Broadus says that one of the four was by birth a 
heathen. Rahab was emphatically so; for the people 
of that doomed city, Jericho, were heathen of the 
heathen. But we conclude he does not mean Rahab, 
for that would leave Ruth to be one of the three he de- 
nominates as “ polluted.” We take it, then, that he 
is speaking of Ruth as the heathen. But who was 
Ruth? The expositorial answer, we think, should be 
something different from what Dr. Broadus gives us. 
She was a descendant of that distinguished friend 
and kinsman of Abraham and Sarah, that preemi- 


TAMAR , RAHAB, RUTH, BATH SHEBA 137 

nent Scripture worthy whose name was Lot. We 
know where Abraham and Lot were last together, in 
the king’s dale when Melchizedek came out to meet 
them with the bread and the wine. They saw each 
other no more that we know of; but they met again, 
so to speak, in their descendants, Ruth and Boaz, in 
the wheat fields of Bethlehem. While Obed, their 
son, was just as much of the blood of Canaan as of 
Abraham, he was doubly more of the blood of Lot 
than of either Canaan or Abraham. Thus Lot, 
though separated from Abraham, yet, as indicated by 
the genealogy, was just as much interested in the 
Messiah that was to come as was Abraham; Canaan 
just as much interested as Israel. Thus, our Lord 
was not simply the son of Abraham or of David, but, 
as He was wont to style Himself, the “ Son of man.” 
Sprung from no one nation alone, He was to be 
owned and embraced by all nations — the Savior of 
the world! 

A fourth woman appears. “And David begat 
Solomon ” — it does not say, of Bathsheba, but “ of 
her who had been the wife of Uriah.” Now, the 
name of Solomon, as it here stands in the genealogy, 
could not be otherwise than suggestive of the high 
renown which the Jewish nation acquired under his 
reign. The clause, then, which brings in his mother 
in connection with him, is equivalent to a parenthe- 
sis complimentary to her; being the same as to say, 
“ He, whose reign gave such renown to the nation, 
was born to David of her who had been the wife of 
Uriah.” We have reason to believe that the Jews, 


138 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


as all the facts in the case eventually came to their 
knowledge, felt a tender regard for her who had been 
wedded to the king under circumstances so appalling- 
ly criminal on his part, and melancholy in the last de- 
gree to herself. But to the dark and inauspicious be- 
ginning there came a most pleasurable offset in the 
subsequent faithfulness of the parties to each other 
and the honor that came to Bathsheba in that her 
son was so worthily chosen to succeed his father on 
the throne. 

We have referred to the circumstances which, we 
think, made it natural for the inspired writer to con- 
nect the names of those four women with the geneal- 
ogy of Christ. But we are sorry that our commenta- 
tor sees no reason for their names appearing unless 
it is, as he says, that three of them were “ polluted 
with shameful wickedness and the fourth was by 
birth a heathen.” Now, on the supposition that what 
he says of the three (Ruth not being one of them) is 
true, we object to the way he connects Ruth with 
them. For, if he is speaking in disparagement of the 
three, he is also speaking so of the fourth. If the 
three were of bad character, what less should he have 
said of Ruth than that, though by birth a heathen 
she was of spotless virtue, ranking justly with Sarah 
herself as a mother in Israel? That phraseology im- 
plied that the three were egregiously wicked and that 
nothing better is to be said of the fourth than that 
she was by birth a heathen. Certainly the connec- 
tion of Ruth with the rest should have been by way 
of contrast. 


TAMAR, RAHAB , RUTH , BATHSHEBA 


139 


And now, as to the three, so far as they were con- 
nected with the genealogy, were they “ polluted ” 
women? Here, again if Tamar and Bathsheba were 
polluted women, then Rahab ought not to be ranked 
with them. What right has a believer in inspiration 
to speak of Rahab otherwise than as the inspired 
penmen speak of her; namely, as preeminent in the 
list of God’s ancient worthies? Her call out of a 
heathen nation was altogether more wonderful than 
Abraham’s. She, of wicked J ericho, the most corrupt 
city, perhaps, of all the heathen, believed in the God of 
Israel, though all alone in this matter, though not an- 
other one of her people believed. Abraham fought no 
bly and rescued his kinsman, but Rahab, even when 
she was unknown to Israel* ventured her life to save 
strangers when they were in jeopardy, just because 
they were of Israel. In short, she was of such esti- 
mation with God that He would as soon have failed 
in giving Israel the promised land as have allowed 
that solitary child that believed in Him, heathen 
though she was, to perish. Yes, He was just as intent 
on saving her as He was in giving Israel the promised 
land. What she had been as a heathen in no way 
detracts from her merits when, brought to a knowledge 
of God, she acts according to His will and leads a 
virtuous life. It is enough for us to know that from 
the time her heart melted towards God and cleaved 
unto His people, no particle of moral taint adheres to 
that name by which she is designated in Bible his- 
tory as Rahab, the harlot. In the account given of her 
there are many things whieh indicate the habits of a 


140 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


consistent life. Be this as it may, we supposed it one 
of the first things understood among Christian people 
that the greater one’s debasement as a heathen, if, 
when he espouses Christ, he rises at once out of all 
that debasement and exemplifies oidy the higher life 
of the Christian, he is only the more to be honored 
for virtue. The position she occupied when incor- 
porated with Israel was amply in her favor, becom- 
ing daughterdndaw to Nahshon, who was designated 
by God as the first captain of the Jewish army, the 
first great prince of the house of Judah. Let this 
suffice — Rahab, the harlot, beyond Sarah or any of the 
wives of the patriarchs, was God’s special heroine. 

And what of the remaining two, Tamar and Bath- 
sheba? If criminality adheres to them, even with 
this admitted, they are the mort extraordinary cases 
on record. As for the latter, the first child she bore 
David was the offspring of adultery, attended (though 
probably unknown to her) with the virtual murder of 
her husband. But the guilt of the whole transaction 
was so much on the side of David that, whilst our 
severest censure falls on him, our heart goes out in 
sorrow for Uriah and commiseration for his wife. In 
adultery two parties are necessary to the crime; but 
if ever there was a case in which one was guilty and 
the other not, this was the case. We do not know 
that, even in the beginning of her connection with 
David, Bathsheba was a woman “ polluted with 
shameful wickedness.” In David’s confession there 
is no inkling as if anybody had sinned or needed 
God’s mercy but himself. The parable of Nathan 


TAMAR , RAHAB , tft/Til, BATHSHEBA 141 

presents David as the rich and cruel man. Bath- 
sheba is his poor neighbor’s only lamb, seized and 
slaughtered for the rich man’s table, Before that 
first child died we have reason to believe that God’s 
signal mercy had been extended to David in answer 
to his broken-hearted cries. Uriah was no more. 
And now for David to have put away Bathsheba 
would have reduced him to a level with the brute of 
a seducer who abandons his victim when he has 
effected her ruin. Upon the death of Uriah, David 
made Bathsheba his wife. She was his lawful wife. 
No pollution adhered to either party thus married. 
It is out of place to tell us that Bathsheba, as she 
stands in the double ancestry of our Lord, was a pol- 
luted woman. Neither Nathan nor Solomon, her 
children, was of polluted birth. Even in respect to 
the first child, wdiose death David so much lamented, 
it is quite a mistake to speak of a polluted woman in 
the case, for we do not know this — but we do know 
there was a polluted man, an intensely criminal man, 
in the case. Both Nathan, through whom Mary 
descended, and Solomon, through whom Joseph, were 
born to David by Bathsheba— (1 Chron. iii. 5.) She, 
therefore, was ancestral mother to both Mary and 
J oseph. 

As for Tamar, here also, as in the case of Bathsheba, 
the “pollution” was so decidedly on the part of the 
family she had married into that she herself is but 
an object of shining virtue compared with them. 
“ Pollution ” is not to be thought of as adhering to 
her. She was fidelity itself to her marriage relation. 


H2 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


What was her offense? Simply this: She was deter- 
mined on maternity; and on lawful maternity — mater- 
nity where, according to the rules of society, she had 
a right to it; namely, in the family of Judah. The 
right to primogeniture from Jacob, and therefore 
from Abraham himself, could not descend through 
Reuben, neither through Simeon nor Levi. It could 
descend only through Judah. Now, whatever advan- 
tage of primogeniture could descend through J udah, he 
himself, by choosing Tamar for the wife of his eldest 
son, had decreed that it should fall to her offspring. 
But this eldest son, to whom she was given, was too 
wicked to live. God slew him. And she, being 
childless, had the second son of Judah for her hus- 
band. His treatment of her was such an offense to 
God that God slew him also. At this juncture 
Tamar returns to her own father’s house; but, with- 
out putting off the garments of her widowhood, she 
maintains the strictest continence, waiting, accord- 
ing to J udah’s own counsel, for the third son to be 
grown. But she lived on only to see that time come 
and yet herself never given unto him to wife. Mean- 
while Judah’s wife, that daughter of a Canaanite, 
that mother of those sons that were not fit to live, 
herself had died. Evidently it was left for Tamar to 
consider it her right, under these circumstances, to be 
taken by Judah himself to wife. And here is just 
what she did. She took advantage of his libertine 
practice to achieve this end. She did become 
Judah’s wife; was so recognized by Jacob. So recog- 
nized, indeed, by Judah himself when the sight of the 
staff, signet and bracelets drew from him the virtual 


TAMAR, RAHAB, RUTH, BA THSHEBA 143 

acknowledgment that she was his wife; else she had 
been stoned. Tamar probably, and her children 
certainly, rode in the wagons that took Jacob and his 
family into Egypt. In the catalogue of that com- 
pany Pharez and Zarah are expressly named as his 
‘‘son’s sons.” They were not illegitimate. Their 
mother was not a “ polluted woman.” 

It is worthy of note that the Israelites put a high 
value upon their ancestry through Tamar. See this 
in the benediction pronounced by the people upon 
Ruth at her marriage with Boaz. “ Let thy house be 
like the house of Pharez whom Tamar bore unto 
Judah.” Who were the people afterwards known, and 
still known, as Jews but real Tamaritans? 

When Jacob, about to die, gathered the patriarchal 
family around him to tell what should befall them, 
I doubt not that Tamar, who from the first had put 
such a value upon her identity with them, stood 
within the hearing of his voice. And when he came 
to speak of Judah, how she must have been thrilled 
with the prophecy; for it was virtually of herself. 
“Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies 
and thy brethren shall praise thee. The scepter 
shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from 
between his feet until Shiloh come; and unto Him 
shall the gathering of the people be.” 

As for the three women first named, we should 
certainly regret their absence had their names been 
omitted from the genealogy. And as for the 
presence of the whole four, it is by no means a case 
where we find ourselves unable to see the propriety 
of the inspired pen. 


IX. 

ELIJAH. 


I . — False moralizers. 

We can understand how an irreverent tongue can 
make a kind of joke on Elijah and tell of his being 
“ scared by a woman.” But how a grave expounder 
of the Bible, when he comes to the account which is 
given of Elijah’s submitting to banishment, should 
take occasion to say, “ God does not need cowards,” 
or apostrophize: “Ah, thou dauntless Elijah: now 
fleeing in cowardice,” we do not understand except 
on the ground that the expounder is altogether 
pseudo in character. 

To us, it is a matter of regret that the attention of 
the young has been so generally invited to this im 
aginary defect in the prophet; for, with the young, 
if you want them to hold a man in contempt, it is 
only necessary for you to call him a coward. 

If there is really any justice in this complaint 
against Elijah we are led to think how, beyond 
what Bible readers have ever imagined, that 
venerated book is the record of cowards. What a 
mistake we have made about grand Scripture char- 
acters, since, in the light of this criticism on Elijah, so 
many of them are cowards. Expositors and preach- 
141 


ELIJAH 


145 


ers have loaded J acob with reproaches ; but they have 
never thought of calling him a coward. They don’t 
call Moses a coward, or David a coward. And yet each 
of these fled for his life; and with nothing to flee 
from, we think, so certain as the death threatened 
by the infuriated Jezebel. Think, too, of the New 
Testament cowards. How happens it that Paul 
should be lauded for his boldness? What a mis- 
take! Was not he let down in a basket at Damascus? 
How secretly he fled for his life ! And, again, from 
Jerusalem, from Iconium, from Thessalonica, from 
Berea. He arrived in Athens a fugitive. How 
strange it is that no expositor has even hinted to 
Sunday-school children that Paul was a coward! 

Indeed, some of these moralizers on Elijah have 
much of the same fault which they deplore in him. 
They are about as doleful over him as he was over 
himself. One of them says, “ It is fairly humiliating 
to human nature to see Elijah fleeing for his life and 
hiding off there in the desert.” Here we could 
speak seriously and say it is too late for a religious 
man to show so little acquaintance with the experi- 
ence of the godly. Shall we call such a man an ex- 
positor? An expositor of what? Certainly not of 
the New Testament. We should hardly accuse him 
of having ever seen or read a leaf of the gospel. He 
has never read what our Lord taught his disciples 
about fleeing from one city to another. Will this ex- 
positor say our Lord taught cowardice? Will he say 
our Lord Himself was a coward? Let him count the 
times on record that our Lord fled for safety— and 


146 SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 

even hid Himself from the wrath of His persecutors. 
And are we told to look to the example of Christ — 
what He did — to see how low down human nature has 
sunk? Look to Elijah, shall we, to have a humiliating 
view of human nature? No mere mortal ever lived 
whose very name turns our minds away from earthly 
contamination and all human weaknesses, and carries 
us so far away towards heaven and God as Elijah’s. 

But the explicit charge against Elijah is that, 
" without waiting for divine directions, he took to 
instant flight.” This reminds us to what an extrem- 
ity the wicked will sometimes go in order to find an 
accusation against a good man. “ Without waiting,” 
is the charge. If a tree is about to fall, how long 
should one wait to get out of the way ? What better 
command did the people of Johnstown need to flee 
than the message that the dam had given away and 
the flood was coming? Is there any chance to sup- 
pose that our Lord, or that Paul, was otherwise than 
obedient to the will of his heavenly Father when he 
fled for his life? Yet nothing is said about waiting 
for directions any more than in the case of Elijah. 

When Elijah had made that first announcement to 
Ahab, God Himself told Elijah to flee and where to 
hide. But why did He tell him? Otherwise Elijah 
would not have known his danger. But when Jez- 
ebel made her threat, was there any need of God’s 
telling him his danger? We may well suppose he 
had sense enough to flee without waiting for an ex- 
press command. 

But, if an express command had been needed, how 


ELIJAH 


U7 


do the expositors know there was none? Elijah 
went to Ahab with his prediction about the rain and 
the dew. It does not say the Lord told him to do it. 
Why does the expositor here omit his chance for 
criticism? Why not say Elijah should have waited 
for God’s direction before troubling Ahab? But 
who doubts that God did direct him? 

Now, as for Elijah’s flight from Jezreel, who, as he 
reads on, does not become aware of the clear pre- 
sumptive evidence that God had indicated to him 
where he should flee? The interview of the angel 
with him under the juniper tree shows that there 
was an understanding between God and him from the 
start as to his destination. What else can be in- 
ferred from his being told that there was his only 
eating-house for his long journey? Clearly it is 
under the advice of God that Elijah takes in Horeb 
in his vacation tour. 

But hurrying off without direction is not the 
charge in full— it is “flying from obedience,” as 
more than one complainer alleges. 

Do they mean that he put off when God had told 
him not to? Whether they mean this or not, the 
charge is a libel. If Elijah were here to ask them 
to state what it was that God ever commanded him 
to do and he did not obey, no one of them could do 
it to save his life. If these accusers do not mean that 
he fled when God told him not to, then their mean- 
ing is that he fled to avoid some positive command. 
Why should these teachers know how to read, if as 
they read, they do not see that this accusation is in 


148 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


conflict with the statement that he fled to save his 
life? Why, if they know how to read, do they pack 
upon Elijah the sin of Jonah? 

We might think this accusation inadvertent, and 
that with a little reflection it would have been 
avoided; but it is repeated by the writers, one after 
another, often by the same writer. “ He gave way 
to fear,” says one; “The victim of unbelief, he fled 
from duty and did what he had no right to do. He 
was followed up and rebuked for it at Sinai by the 
Almighty.” They put special stress on his straying 
from duty. They draw a lesson from his despond- 
ency under the juniper tree and wanting to die, by 
saying all that was the result of his running away 
from duty. This is to say he fled in order to avoid 
doing what he knew would be an acceptable service 
to God, though not a specific command. As this 
censure occurs so often, we have been led to make a 
serious inquiry as to what the “duty” referred to 
could be. Do the expositors themselves know? If 
Elijah were here to put the question, we don’t believe 
any one of them would dare open his mouth. 

“ You are mistaken,” says a friend at my side. 
“ They say he was a coward, do they not ”? 

“ Yes, sir.” 

“ Well, then, right in this charge is involved the 
‘duty’ they allude to. What is plainer? His 
‘ duty,’ according to the complaints made of him, 
was to have remained right there in the Jezreel 
neighborhood and have had his head cut square off 
before the next sunset! ” 


ELIJAH 


149 


Sure enough! It is just as the expositors say. 
That scene three days after under the juniper tree, 
with all its despondency, was most certainly the result 
of his fleeing from that “ duty.” 

But another expositor accounts for his despond- 
ency in a different way. He says that “ Elijah was 
sore troubled to find himself only a common mortal 
like his fathers.” This implies that he had been all 
along a selfish, vainglorious man. (Does the exposi- 
tor know whom he is talking about?) And he goes on 
— makes Elijah a peevish, complaining man, under- 
rating his brethren. “There are many such people,” 
he says (such as Elijah) “who are forever finding 
fault with their condition or the people around them,” 
and he continues, “ If Elijah had spent the three 
days consumed in running away from duty in sympa- 
thizing prayer for his people, it would have been 
much better for him and them.” 

But who is the “ peevish complainer,” Elijah or 
his critic? The only way we can have any forbear- 
ance at all with such a moralizer is to allow him the 
advantage of being considered in the same predica- 
ment that another expositor assigns to Elijah; 
namelv, “ He was so blue that he couldn’t speak the 
truth.” 

II. — Saved from death, hut not from false 
moralizeres , 2,900 years after. 

There was much need, we think, that certain ex- 
positors and moralizers should receive some check in 


150 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


the matter of unjust comment on the prophet Elijah. 
We rejoice to see what is done to this end. 

Elijah has needed no vindication, that we are aware 
of, from the attacks of infidels. Who, then, would 
suppose that in this enlightened period of Chris- 
tianity it would be made necessary to remonstrate 
against the reproaches cast upon him by professed 
believers in the Bible? 

There has been a growing propensity to speak 
lightly of Bible worthies. This would be very un- 
fortunate if prevailing only in the private circle, or 
on occasions where conversation is suposed to be 
more or less without reflection; but when the religious 
press, especially Sabbatlnschool literature, is made 
the medium for disclosing and dilating on the faults 
(whether real or imaginary) of such a man as Elijah, 
it will be found in the end to do more to weaken the 
reverence of this generation for the Bible than all 
the Ingersollsof the whole world can do. 

I was aware how free our pens were to recriminate 
Noah, Lot, Bebecca, and Jacob, but was glad to no- 
tice that, when they came to Joseph, they contemplated 
his actions from first to last with no particle of cen- 
sure. Happy Joseph, I said: And, as I thought of 
another character, I took courage for him. It was 
Elijah. Certainly, I thought, our moralizing teachers 
will have opportunity to expend all their love for 
recrimination on such characters as poor David and 
his son, so that they will be even glad to rest from 
this propensity when they come to speak of Elijah. 

What was my surprise! The first I knew an able 
thinker was reminding his readers that Elijah had 


ELIJAH 


151 


his faults and, in confirmation of this, alluding to 
his “ impious prayer.” Now, the bad sense of “ im- 
pious ” is much stronger than mere not pious. We 
think Guiteau made an “ impious prayer ” on the 
scaffold. The phrase suggests a hardened, we may 
say, a lost sort of character. But if the writer meant 
by it a prayer that betokened only a temporary 
decline of faith, we see no cause for even this com- 
paratively mild reflection upon Elijah. We think 
the case quite similar to that of Simeon who wanted 
to live to see the great prophecy fulfilled, and when 
this had been permitted to him, he had no care to 
live longer. And what if Elijah, when he thought 
he had finished his mission and could be of no more 
service to God, was willing to die or even requested 
of God that he might die? We have somehow 
imbibed the idea that it is the mark of the true 
Christian hero that he has no desire to live beyond 
that hour when he can no longer be of any service to 
God. But this request of Elijah’s associates him 
more particularly with Moses. At the very hour when 
he had reason to suppose that the purpose for which 
he was here on earth was accomplished, there came 
that message from Jezebel. What if, on his way to 
Beerslieba, it came to his mind how Moses, just so 
soon as he had completed his mission, was led away 
from the eyes of his people to die. And when he 
left his servant at Beersheba and went alone that 
day’s journey into the desert, what if, as he did so, it 
was with the impression that it would prove the will 
of God for him to die there? Hence, what if the 
force of his request under the juniper tree is, “ Now 


162 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


Lord take me away just as You did Moses” ? He 
wants nothing better than to die as Moses did. We 
think this is the significance of the words “ for I am 
no better than my fathers.” 

Well, he never died as Moses did; but, when he 
came back to earth, he brought Moses with him. 
There we see them together on the Mount of Trans- 
figuration holding an interview with the Lord of 
Glory. We believe that Elijah lived in the con- 
sciousness of his identification with Moses as, like 
him, having been called to special work by God; and 
it cannot be counted to him as evidence that he had 
lost his faith in God, if he had gathered the idea 
that, like Moses, his task completed, he was to be hid 
away by God’s own hand forever from the eyes of 
men. We consider it one of the most striking 
instances of human presumption for a mortal or 
any number of mortals to sit in judgment over either 
party, whether God or Elijah, for what was said or 
done under the juniper tree. 

And what came next? It was a scholar, who, as if 
apprehensive that his readers might overrate Elijah 
on account of his remarkable exit from earth, reminds 
them how he has doubtless been surpassed in holi- 
ness by others not thus honored. “ Elisha, who was 
not translated, he says, had double the spirit that 
characterized Elijah’s greatness,” quoting in proof 
the words, “ Let a double portion of thy spirit be 
upon me.” Was it any wonder that I was amazed at 
this? For it looks as if the writer was willing to 
sacrifice his character as a scholar in order to under- 
rate the prophet. Indeed, how could he suppose 


ELIJAH 


153 


that the common reader would not know that a 
“portion” of an estate cannot mean the whole of 
that estate; and that two such portions cannot mean 
the double of that estate? Besides, how could we 
commend Elisha if he craved twice the eminence of 
Elijah? Such an inordinate desire would have had 
the tinge of selfishness and vainglory about it — 
would have been a reflection, indeed, upon Elijah’s 
rank— as if Elijah was but half the man of God, that 
he, Elisha, was aspiring to become. But what was 
the truth as to that request? It implied that Elisha 
had great reverence for the prophet, regarding him 
as his father — a father rich in the exalted treasures 
of the Spirit. He wants not the whole estate — much 
less does he presume upon any such impossibility as 
that of inheriting the double of it. But he does ask 
for a double portion — large portion — the portion of 
the first-born. And what is there in this to authorize 
the scholar to say that Elijah, though translated, had 
but half the grace of the Spirit that his successor had, 
who was not translated but died like common men? 

What a terrible thing the moralizers make it, and 
how strange a thing, and how sinful, that Elijah, for 
once and so suddenly, should be found looking on 
the dark side! But there is no lack of evidence that 
they themselves have a remarkable tendency for look- 
ing on the dark side — of Elijah. 

i» 

III . — The traducers of Elijah. 

“ Fleeing from a woman.” And this the taunt of 
preachers moralizing on the prophet Elijah. They 


154 


SCRIPTURE WORTHIES 


forget that a woman’s resentment may be more 
dangerous than a man’s. As to executing threats, 
Jezebel was more to be dreaded than Ahab ten times 
over. They speak of Elijah’s “ deserting his post of 
duty.” What post was it, unless to stay where he 
was — be foolhardy enough to stay right there and 
have his head cut off before the next night? And 
for not doing this, they call it “ faith’s failure ” — his 
“ fall of faith ” — and scatter their falsehoods broadcast 
through the Sabbath-schools. But these libels on 
Elijah, how short-sighted they are! Foolish exposi- 
tors! They do not see that by these charges on 
Elijah they virtually accuse Paul and even our Lord 
of cowardice, for quite a number of times they fol- 
lowed the example of Elijah in fleeing from danger. 

To accuse Elijah of “ deserting his post of duty ” 
is an affront to God Himself. He had accomplished 
his mission — had brought the people in the most 
public and pronounced manner to relinquish idolatry. 
And when, for this, Jezebel was bent on his death, 
the mind of God evidently was for Elijah to get out 
of her way — do as her threat warned him to do, and 
leave her to fill up the measure of her crimes. 

We do not see how an expositor can show more 
ignorance and misconception than to say, in treat- 
ing of Elijah as he tarried under the juniper tree: 
“ He wanted to die on account of disappointment.” 
It was precisely the reverse. Contemplate his career 
from the time he said “ no more rain or dew,” to the 
hour when the fire lit down upon his altar — when 
the whole air resounded with the cry of Israel, the 


ELIJAH 


155 


“ Lord, He is God,” — when, also, in answer to his 
prayers, the heavens grew black with clouds and 
there was a flood of rain: and where is there another 
such instance of a work of God undertaken by man 
that was so complete in its achievement as Elijah’s? 
Israel may again and again fall into sin and experi- 
ence terrible penalties, but that does not affect the 
completeness of Elijah’s success. For Israel and all 
the nations of the earth are taught, in a manner 
never to be forgotten so long as the world shall stand, 
“ the Lord, He is God.” But the miserable, libelous 
whine continues: “He was awfully despondent. 
The consciousness of cowardly deserting the post 
of duty made him so.” 

The exalted character of Elijah in connection 
with the inspired narrative leaves no chance for a 
scurrillous interpretation like the above. Why not 
call Simeon to account for saying, when he had 
taken the child Jesus in his arms, “Now Lord let me 
die ”? God had not revealed to Elijah that He had 
another mission on hand for him — and is he to be 
treated with contempt because, under a conviction 
that his work was done, he was willing, or even de- 
sired to die, and be forever with God? 

The ministry of this day is fairly chargeable with 
the guilt of casting slurs upon Scripture worthies. 

















Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 






















































































































































* 






















































































































